SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained that she had been experiencing issues with the heating system in her home for a considerable length of time and that the actions taken by the housing association to resolve the situation were inadequate. Mrs C complained to the association on four occasions in a two year period as at times the heating system was not providing hot water or heating, or at other times was providing uncontrollable heat. The association responded within timescales to her reports of faults, however the repairs carried out did not resolve the issues. Mrs C's final complaint was escalated to senior management and the entire heating system was replaced. The association acknowledged that it had taken too long to fix the problem and upheld her complaint. Mrs C remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us. Whilst we acknowledged that there were elements of the response to the faults that were outwith the association's control, we considered that the responsibility for managing the issues and co-ordinating a response ultimately lay with the association. We acknowledged that during the process the association had provided good customer service; providing an alternative heating supply, installing an electric shower, offering a good will payment and reimbursing Mrs C for her extra energy costs. However, on balance, we upheld this part of the complaint as we found that it had taken the association too long on the whole to fix the problem. Mrs C also complained about the response she had received from the association to her complaints. We found that the association had provided a reasonable explanation regarding the actions taken to resolve the heating system issues, mitigated the financial impact of the problem and apologised to Mrs C. We did note that the association failed to signpost Mrs C to the next stage of the complaints process on a number of occassions. However, on balance, we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C said that the housing association did not give him clear and consistent information about boundary fencing. We found that Mr C had raised the issue over a period of years and had spoken to different members of staff. We found that the development was open plan in design with open front gardens and enclosed rear gardens. We found that Mr C and the association did not agree about where the boundary was between Mr C's garden and an area of common ground. Ultimately we found that it was for the association (as Mr C's landlord) to say what the extent of the garden was. We found that there had been a lack of clear and consistent information from Mr C in terms of what he wanted, and when he was asked to complete the association's alterations form to clarify his request, he did not do so. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404666 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy that the association failed to provide him with sufficient information when he signed his tenancy agreement. They disagreed and said that they did provide him with enough information. We explained to Mr C that the association were not required to go through his tenancy agreement, word for word, at the signing. Our investigation considered what information Mr C was given and whether this was in line with the relevant procedures. We found that the allocation policy and sign-up procedure applied to Mr C's situation and that both had been followed accurately. This meant that the association had done as they should have and had provided sufficient information, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201400205 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018