SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the housing association was failing to ensure that their contractors provided a reasonable stair-cleaning service in the communal areas of his home. He had reported a number of issues to them about poor cleaning. The association acknowledged that there had been problems but noted that they had acted when Mr C raised concerns. They had either inspected the communal areas and found them to be in a reasonable condition or instructed their contractors to carry out further cleaning. We found that the association had taken Mr C's complaints seriously and responded to each of his communications. As we found no evidence of administrative failings in the way they had dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507995 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the housing association about various types of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. She complained that the association had failed to deal appropriately with her complaints and had unreasonably failed to carry out their promise to fix her neighbour’s flooring to limit household noise causing disturbance to her. We examined diaries kept by Ms C, together with the association’s files on their contact with her and the investigation of her complaints. The evidence showed that housing officers had carried out appropriate enquiries, had explored the possibility of mediation and had told Ms C the outcome of their enquiries and why they were unable to pursue matters. We could not establish whether Ms C was given promises that flooring repairs would be done, but we found that housing officers had agreed that a survey should take place, and that repairs were later carried out. We did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201300330 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of her neighbour (Mr A) about the time it took for the housing association to carry out repair work to address damp and drainage problems affecting his home. Mr A felt the association had ignored concerns he had raised both individually and collectively and was unhappy with the way the complaint was handled. Ms C raised the matter with a parliamentary minister because she was dissatisfied at having to constantly phone and write letters in order to gain the association's attention. The association explained that the problems identified were significant and a timescale for completion of the work was difficult to provide because more investigative work was required, but they accepted that they could have communicated better with Mr A. They also acknowledged the information Ms C had provided, and had offered an ex-gratia payment to her and to another neighbour as an apology. In addition, they introduced a new customer care centre to improve communications. It did take around nine months for the damp and drainage problems to be addressed, but the association provided evidence that during that time they were actively working to address extensive problems that affected the whole building. We agreed the circumstances were exceptional, and that their actions were reasonable. We found the association's responses became more informative as work progressed, but on occasion it seemed that Ms C had to ask for information rather than this being proactively provided. We also upheld the complaint about communication. Overall, we found that their response to the complaint was reasonable, but we took the view that Mr A should have been offered the same redress as his neighbours.

Ms C complained about the time it took for the housing association to carry out repair work to address damp and drainage problems affecting her home. Ms C felt that the housing association had ignored the concerns she had raised both individually and collectively, and was unhappy with the way in which the complaint was handled. Ms C raised the matter with a parliamentary minister because she was dissatisfied at having to constantly phone and write letters in order to gain the housing association's attention. The association explained that the problems identified were significant and a timescale for completion of the work was difficult to provide because more investigative work was required, but they accepted that they could have communicated better with Ms C. They also acknowledged the information she had provided and offered her an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment as an apology. In addition, they introduced a new customer care centre to improve communications. It did take around nine months for the damp and drainage problems to be addressed, but the association provided evidence that during that time they were actively working to address extensive problems that affected the whole building. We agreed that the circumstances were exceptional, and that their actions were reasonable. We found that the association's responses became more informative as work progressed, but on occasion it seemed that Ms C had to ask for information rather than this being proactively given and we upheld her complaint about communication. We concluded, however, that their response to the complaint and offer of redress were reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201204216 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018