SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C made several reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association over a number of years. She complained about how her reports of ASB were handled by the association, and particularly that they did not progress action to evict a tenant. We noted that the association sought and considered legal advice, which informed their decision not to commence eviction proceedings. Ms C also complained that the association did not contact the local authority's Family and Household Support Service (FHSS) regarding an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO). We noted that the association had not contacted the FHSS as they had taken the decision that the serving of an ASBO was not indicated. They subsequently contacted the service to discuss Ms C's complaint, and the FHSS appeared content that this was a matter for the association and they did not have to be involved. We considered the association's ASB policy would benefit from being clearer on what the purpose of contact with the FHSS might be and when this might be considered on individual cases. We fed this back to the association. However, we considered that the association managed the situation appropriately and with regard to their policy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We noted that the association sometimes referred to reports of ASB as complaints about ASB, and we considered this raised the potential for confusion between reports of ASB and formal complaints of service failure (including how reports of ASB have been handled). Ms C complained that the association failed to treat an email she sent them as a formal complaint. We noted that Ms C had submitted a further report of ASB that the association were looking into, when she submitted her email complaining about their handling of her previous report of ASB. The association did not accept this complaint while their enquiries into the current ASB report were still ongoing. We recognised that Ms C was entitled t

Miss C complained to the housing association that, prior to her agreeing to take up a tenancy, they failed to fully disclose the extent of the neighbours' anti-social behaviour, specifically relating to their barking dogs. She also complained that the association failed to take appropriate steps to address her complaints of anti-social behaviour by neighbours. In their response to Miss C's complaint, the association explained that she was advised of the neighbouring dogs causing a nuisance, but that they had no other information or complaints regarding the extent of the dogs barking prior to her taking up the tenancy. They outlined that they had advised her that the neighbour was a private tenant and as such they had no power to take action. Miss C was not satisfied with the association's response to her complaint. She considered that the association should have done more to manage the problems with respect to the barking dogs and associated disturbances with her neighbours. She brought her complaint to us. We did not find any evidence that, prior to Miss C taking up her tenancy, the association had received complaints regarding barking dogs at neighbouring properties. Consequently, we did not consider that the association had unreasonably failed to provide her with important information prior to her taking up the tenancy. In relation to the handling of Miss C's complaints, we found that Miss C was offered appropriate advice that the council were the appropriate body to take action in relation to disturbances relating to barking dogs. We considered that the association had provided Miss C with appropriate advice in the circumstances. We found that the association had investigated Miss C's complaints of anti-social behaviour appropriately, in line with their anti-social behaviour policy, and had advised Miss C of the outcome on each occasion. As a result, we considered the association had carried out appropriate investigations. We did not uphold Miss C's compl

Ms C complained about the length of time that the housing association took to complete repairs to her flat. She had moved into her property in December 2012 and had been in contact with the association from then on about repairs, before eventually making a formal complaint some three months later. At that point the association agreed to the works to be done and closed Ms C's complaint. However, Ms C then submitted a new complaint that her home had not met the standards that the association set for their properties. Because of this she said she wanted a refund of her rent up until that time. The association upheld this complaint and acknowledged the delays in carrying out repairs. They offered Ms C a lesser amount of compensation but Ms C did not feel that this was appropriate. She told the association about the difficulties the delays had caused her in her particular circumstances and maintained that she should be entitled to a full rent rebate. Although the association's final response confirmed their earlier decision to uphold Ms C's complaint, confirmed that her home had not met their standards, and increased their offer, they did not agree to refund the rent in full. We found evidence that the delays in having the repairs completed were unreasonable and so we upheld Ms C's complaint. However, we do not have the legal power to question the association's decision of how much compensation to award, unless there is some evidence of fault, omission or failure on their part in making that decision. We did not find this in Ms C's case, as the association had made their award based on the 'right to repair' regulations.

Mr C raised his concern about the housing association's handling of his complaint about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. He complained that the association had failed to follow their policies and procedures for dealing with antisocial behaviour. We upheld the complaint as during our investigation we found that the association had considered the matter to be a neighbour dispute, and while they had been in contact with Mr C in response to his complaint they had failed initially to fully investigate his concerns in line with their policy. They had subsequently investigated the complaint appropriately, and had suggested organising a meeting with the two parties in an effort to resolve the dispute.

Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to follow their allocations policy by allocating a flat, which was adapted for wheelchair access, to a couple, rather than to her mother (Mrs A), who had a higher medical priority. She said that, despite her complaint, the association failed to put a hold on the tenancy and, when it was established that they had indeed made a mistake, they unreasonably delayed in arranging a mutual exchange with the couple who had moved into the property and who were willing to exchange with Mrs A. The association identified, when carrying out their own investigation into the complaint, that they had failed to follow their allocations policy. We also found that they had missed a number of opportunities to rectify this mistake before the tenancy agreement was signed, and we upheld this complaint. However, we did not uphold the complaint that they failed to put the tenancy on hold when Mrs C complained as, by this stage, the tenancy agreement was signed and could not be revoked. In addition, it was clear from our examination of the housing association's actions following this complaint that they had acted appropriately by trying to resolve this unfortunate situation in the best interests of all parties. We found no evidence that they unreasonably delayed in arranging a mutual exchange. Related reading View Decision Report 201204738 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018