SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to reports of anti-social behaviour C made about a neighbouring tenant (B). The association and the police jointly visited B, discussed the reports and agreed an acceptable behaviour contract. C raised further complaints of anti-social behaviour by B. The association undertook action following consideration of these complaints. C raised further complaints and C left their property temporarily to get away from the stress and exhaustion they had experienced. C also requested the tenancy of another property. The association issued B with a warning letter and C moved to another property. C complained to the association regarding B's history of anti-social behaviour and the association's action in response to these reports. In their response, the association said they believed their actions had complied with the relevant tenancy agreements and their Anti-Social Behaviour and Harassment Policy. We found that the association were not able to demonstrate that C's reports of anti-social behaviour were categorised in line with their Anti-Social Behaviour and Harassment Policy. We also found that the association did not record all of the reports they received from C, did not record what information or other factors were taken into account when reaching their decisions on C's reports and did not record the reasons why they reached the conclusions they did on what the most appropriate action to take in relation to the reports were. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Mr C complained about rechargeable repairs he was billed for after he vacated his tenancy. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement he was responsible for any damage caused and any items left in the property. He was charged for removal of items, repairs to doors and cleaning and redecoration throughout. We found that Mr C had been properly advised of his responsibilities. We further found that the condition of the property was beyond what could be considered fair wear and tear. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605546 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C's washing machine failed and caused a flood to their downstairs neighbour's flat. Both Mr and Mrs C and the tenant below them are tenants of the housing association. Mr and Mrs C's contents insurer said that as Mr and Mrs C had not been negligent, they would not cover the cost of repairing the damage. The association rectified the problems in the tenant's flat below and charged Mr and Mrs C for the cost of this. Mr and Mrs C complained that this was unreasonable. We considered this complaint carefully and asked some specific questions of the association. Following this, the association decided that without a clear policy and legal guidance around these types of situations, they had not acted reasonably. We agreed a number of steps the association could take to resolve the matter to Mr and Mrs C's satisfaction.

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his sister (Miss A), a housing association tenant. He complained that the association unreasonably withdrew an offer of housing from her. We found that the association had asked Miss A to contact them as she was being considered for a property. When Miss A contacted the association she told them that her circumstances had changed. The process was therefore stopped at that point – without an offer of housing being made – so that Miss A could let the association know about these changes and allow them to be assessed. As there were was no evidence of an offer being made we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201600684 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a housing association staff member had given confidential information about him to a neighbour, and complained about this to the association. The manager who responded to his complaint was, however, one of the staff members who Mr C alleged had disclosed this information. Mr C felt that this was not appropriate. Also, as part of the investigation, the manager contacted the neighbour to ask if he had knowledge of the confidential information. Mr C felt that this gave the neighbour knowledge of who had made the complaint. We were unable to uphold the complaint about disclosure of confidential information because we could find no evidence to support one version of events over another. However, the association acknowledged that they could have handled their investigation of Mr C's complaint better. They agreed that it should have been conducted by another member of staff and they should have contacted Mr C to seek his permission to contact the neighbour. As they also said they would apologise to Mr C for this and assure him that they had identified areas in their complaints handling procedure that they will take steps to improve, we did not need to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201301787 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018