SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained that the housing association responsible for the development she lived in had failed to undertake an appropriate consultation of fellow tenants regarding proposed changes to services. She also complained about the tone of communications and the way some of the meetings were handled by members of staff. The association responded to the complaint outlining the consultation process and the steps they took to consult with tenants on the proposed changes. They considered that they had carried out an appropriate consultation and that the communications had been tailored to the tenants at the development. With regard to the exchanges during meetings, the association considered that its staff behaved appropriately. Mrs C was not satisfied with the response and brought her complaints to our office. We obtained information from Mrs C together with evidence from the association. We found that the association had adopted a range of communication methods and offered a number of avenues for tenants to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw evidence that tenants' concerns were considered at a management level. Therefore, we concluded that the association had taken reasonable steps to consult with its tenants on changes to the services within the development. With respect to the association's handling of Mrs C's complaint, and in relation to the conduct of their staff at meetings, the evidence showed that the association had conducted a proper investigation and had come to an appropriate conclusion regarding Mrs C's complaint. The association had provided a full response to Mrs C within their timescales. We did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201606290 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C said that since her neighbour moved next door, she had been disturbed and upset by her neighbour's anti-social behaviour. She complained that while she had brought her concerns to her landlord (the housing association), they had failed to reasonably respond to her concerns. We found that although many complaints had been made, they were denied by Ms C's neighbour. The association was unable to confirm that anti-social behaviour had taken place because there was no independent evidence of such behaviour. This was despite the association having involved third parties such as the police and the council in their investigation. The evidence showed that throughout, the association had followed their policy on anti-social behaviour complaints - they had interviewed both parties, attempted to obtain independent verification and used noise monitoring machinery. They had also offered a mutual exchange of house to the parties involved. No proof of anti-social behaviour had been found. In these circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201503760 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C said she had applied to the association for permission to erect a suitable shelter or shed for her mobility scooter and later decided that a shed would be more suitable. She said that all the sites the association suggested were not suitable. The association, however, said that her preferred location was not possible as there was a communal access path leading to the rear of the terrace of houses at that point. Mrs C was also unhappy about the outcome of a tenants' meeting held by the association to discuss the matter of private rear gardens. She also said the association had ignored their own complaints process in dealing with her complaint and delayed in responding to her. We found that the association had properly considered all the circumstances and Mrs C's views on the location of the shed and put forward two options that they considered would satisfy both Mrs C and all their current and future tenants. With reference to the tenants' meeting we found that the association had acted correctly in this matter. During our consideration of Mrs C's complaint the association acknowledged that they had not fully complied with their complaints policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mrs C's complaints about the location of the shed or the outcome of the tenants' meeting but did uphold her complaint about the way the association had dealt with her complaint to them.