SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the association did not reasonably address reports of antisocial behaviour. C is the Chief Executive of a charity who owns a property in a block where other properties are owned by the association. The charity's tenant complained of antisocial behaviour from one of their neighbours and the charity reported this to the association. A few weeks later, C complained that these reports of antisocial behaviour had not been addressed. C did not receive a response until they followed it up some months later. The association explained that they considered their policies and procedures had been followed. C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with SPSO. We found that the association did not progress the reports of antisocial behaviour in line with their antisocial behaviour procedure. They did not update C regarding the situation and did not advise C when the case was closed. We found that the association did not keep full and accurate records of telephone calls and verbal discussions regarding an investigation which contributed to the association making an inaccurate statement to the charity. The association also failed to update the relevant recording system in relation to a report of antisocial behaviour, failed to categorise the report or to consider whether the report was substantiated as the antisocial behaviour procedure required. We found that the association did not recognise some of their failures when investigating and responding to C’s complaint. Therefore, they missed the opportunity to take steps to ensure that there could be no recurrence of this at a time when this could have been effective for A and the other residents at the property. We upheld C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the advisory disabled parking spaces outside the multi-story flat where he lived, were repeatedly impeded by other cars that were parked inappropriately. Mr C was unhappy as he was unable to get in and out of the spaces freely and he believed that his housing association were not doing enough to ensure that they were making reasonable adjustments for his disability. He also stated that inappropriate parking was a breach of the tenancy agreement. The association responded by stating that the spaces were only advisory and, therefore, they did not have enforcement powers due to the spaces being on land privately owned by them. They made enquiries to the council about obtaining a traffic regulation order, which would allow them to take appropriate enforcement action. They explained that this would involve a long consultation process and at a significant cost to the association and, therefore, they were still in the process of considering this matter going forward. In the meantime, they advised that residents had been lettered highlighting that the spaces in question were to be kept for blue badge holders and that people should park courteously. They also asked concierge staff to monitor the situation and ask people if they would move. Mr C felt that the matter was still ongoing and brought his complaint to us. He was concerned that the association were not taking all the action available to them. We acknowledged that the association did not have legal powers to enforce the spaces. However, we noted that the association's litigation team had accepted that people subject to the tenancy agreement were breaching its terms by parking inappropriately, that they could be advised of this breach and that further action may be forthcoming. We found that a reasonable adjustment by the association would be to require people to move their cars and take appropriate follow-up action. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained to the association about problems with insects in her home and the water quality, after it was confirmed by the provider that there were high levels of lead in the water. The association responded to the complaint about insects by instructing specialists, who reported that there was no infestation but carried out preventative treatments. With respect to water quality, the association said that they checked internal pipework and confirmed there was no lead present. They also contacted the water provider and, following a re-test of the water supply, it was confirmed that the levels of lead were now at safe levels. The association considered that there was nothing else they could do on the matter. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We found that the association had acted reasonably in instructing proper inspections of her property which confirmed that there was no insect infestation. There was a delay with respect to organising preventative treatments, however, these were not the fault of the association. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. In relation to the problems with respect to the water quality, the association had taken appropriate steps to liaise with the water provider and had undertaken checks with respect to the pipework which was their responsibility. The association made reasonable enquiries with respect to the cause of the initial high lead readings and acted on the advice of the water provider. We found the actions of the association were reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of Mrs  C's complaint. Mrs C also complained about how the associaton handled her complaint. We found that there had been a small delay in responding to her complaint, however, the association's reponse provided a detailed account of the actions they were taking to understand and address the complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Deci

Mrs C complained on behalf of her late mother (Ms A) that the housing association failed to take reasonable action or provide an appropriate level of support in response to reports of anti-social behaviour. Ms A had made a number of complaints about anti-social noise caused by her upstairs neighbour. The association issued a warning to the neighbour after one report but did not take any further action following others. Mrs C felt that the association's lack of action in response to anti-social behaviour caused Ms A to complete suicide. We found that the association had taken action against the neighbour on the one occasion that they had evidence of anti-social behaviour occurring. Given the type of anti-social behaviour, we considered that an initial warning was appropriate and in line with the housing association's internal policies. The association attempted to corroborate other reports of anti-social behaviour but were unable to do so. Therefore, we considered that it would not have been appropriate for them to take further action on these occasions. We also noted that the reports of anti-social behaviour increased within a relatively short timeframe and we found no evidence to suggest that the housing association would not have escalated the measures taken and offered further support had the incidents continued. We considered that the housing association had acted reasonably and in line with relevant procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201707161 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained about how the housing association had dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour and that there had been failures in their communication with her. We found that, although the association were unable to share the details of the actions they had taken when Mrs C reported anti-social behaviour, they had followed their anti-social behaviour policy and taken appropriate action. We did not uphold this aspect of complaint. The association acknowledged occasions when their communication was poor and apologised for this. We upheld this aspect of the complaint but did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201702241 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C, who is a community activist who supports and acts on behalf of people in his local area, complained about the housing association's investigation of a complaint that he had made on behalf of a neighbour (Mr A) regarding a housing officer. The association confirmed that they had arranged a meeting between Mr A and the housing officer, during which the concerns which Mr C had raised were discussed. We considered that this was a reasonable response and we did not think that any further investigation was necessary. We did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained that the association's communication with him was unreasonable. In particular, he considered that the area housing manager should have met with him after he requested a meeting to discuss the complaint mentioned above. He also complained that a letter from his MSP was not properly dealt with. After Mr C raised concerns about the area housing manager's failure to respond to his concerns in full, the area director responded to him. We considered it appropriate for matters to have been passed to the area director, and considered that the director's response to Mr C was reasonable. We noted that after Mr C's MSP contacted the association they arranged a meeting with the MSP and Mr C, but this was cancelled at Mr C's request. We considered the association's actions to have been reasonable and did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained that the association had requested photographic identification with representation mandates. He said that he had never been asked for identification before and that he thought the association were trying to be obstructive. The association said that previous guidance to staff had confirmed that photographic identification was required, but advised Mr C that they had changed their process and apologised for any upset or inconvenience caused. The association provided us with a copy of the staff guidance in place at the time, showing that photographic ident

Miss C complained that the association failed to respond reasonably to her reports of the anti-social behaviour of other tenants, including regarding communal areas, and failed to reasonably deal with her subsequent complaint. We found that the association took appropriate action to investigate and respond to the concerns Miss C raised about anti-social behaviour, including issuing written warnings where corroboration was available. We were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their procedures, and we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, we upheld Miss C's complaint about the way her subsequent complaint was dealt with by the association. This is because they failed to respond within the required timescale, an extension was not agreed, and the complaint was not escalated appropriately, in accordance with the requirements of their complaints procedure.

Ms C, who works for an advocacy agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the housing association had not done enough to deal with the anti-social behaviour that Mr A had reported and did not reasonably manage his request to be rehoused. Mr A had experienced anti-social behaviour from a previous neighbour. When he began experiencing it again from the next tenant, he requested a management transfer (a special transfer not based on the normal points system). We found that the association had been unable to corroborate Mr A's allegations of anti-social behaviour, despite visiting the property and installing noise monitoring equipment. As such they were limited in how much action they could take. We also found they had assessed Mr A's request to be rehoused in line with their normal allocations policy and did not consider a management transfer to be appropriate; this was a discretionary decision they are allowed to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201508698 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he had been unreasonably asked for rent in advance and pursued for this by the housing association, which caused him stress and anxiety. He also complained that the association had not carried out adaptations to his new property as recommended in an occupational therapist's report. Although these matters were addressed, he complained that the association had taken a long time to resolve them. We found that while the association had accepted in 2014 that Mr C should not have been asked to pay his rent in advance, when he initially complained about this matter in 2013 the association had incorrectly advised him that he was required to pay rent in advance. We found that had the correct information been given in 2013, Mr C would not have had to raise this matter in 2014. We were satisfied that, prior to moving into his new property, the association had arranged for an occupational therapy assessment to be carried out to determine the suitability of the property for Mr C. The assessment determined that his new property was suitable for his needs. On that basis he had been offered the property. In response to Mr C's continuing concerns, the association arranged for another assessment. The new assessment recommended some adaptations, which the association agreed to carry out where technically possible in an effort to address Mr C's concerns. While some of the adaptations were carried out, some were not suitable for his new property. We were satisfied that the association had taken action based on the professional advice given by the occupational therapy service.

Mr C complained about the association after they decided to suspend his housing application due to rent arrears with his current landlord. We found that the association had acted correctly, following all relevant policies, procedures, guidance and legislation. Their policy clearly stated that they may suspend an application when an applicant has housing debt greater than one month's rent payment, and when the applicant has not stuck to a repayment agreement for at least three months. The tenancy reference they received from Mr C's landlord clearly stated that his rent arrears were greater than one month's rent payment, and that there had been a shortfall in his last payment. We found that they had the discretion to decide whether to suspend Mr C's application in these circumstances, and did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502786 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C said that she and her mother (Mrs C) had lived in their house for more than 35 years but that, in 2012, they began to suffer noise nuisance from their neighbours. Despite complaining at the time and since, they said that no action had been taken. Miss C complained that the housing association's housing officer did little to assist them and also provided misinformation about Mrs C's rehousing prospects. She also complained that no action had been taken on complaints of dampness. Our investigation showed that Mrs C first raised concerns about noise nuisance in May 2013 but that at that time she did not wish to pursue matters. A few weeks later, as the problem was persisting, the association arranged for Mrs C and her neighbour to enter into mediation but the neighbour subsequently changed her mind. No further reports of noise were made although Miss C expressed herself dissatisfied with the association's actions. In the meantime, in September 2013, Mrs C was awarded medical priority and she was unhappy not to have been rehoused. However, it appeared that the type of property she wanted rarely became available. There were others who had longer-standing priority and her application was being treated in accordance with the association's allocations policy. With regard to outstanding repairs about dampness, this had only been mentioned in November 2014 and the association had responded appropriately. There was no evidence to suggest that the housing officer had acted unreasonably. Related reading View Decision Report 201403951 as a PDF (11.36 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who had been a housing association tenant, was evicted from his property. He complained that, around the time of his eviction, the association disposed of his belongings before he had a chance to collect them. We told Mr C that we would not look at the eviction itself, as this is outwith our jurisdiction, but we would look at whether the association gave him enough warning and enough time to arrange to collect his possessions before they disposed of them. We found that at the end of a tenancy it is the responsibility of the tenant to make arrangements beforehand for the removal of their possessions. The association would, therefore, have been within their rights to take action on the date of eviction in accordance with the warrant of the court. We also noted that the association told Mr C several times that he needed to get his belongings ready for the eviction date and what would happen to them if he did not. Although we recognised the distress caused, the evidence showed that Mr C had 13 weeks from the date of decree for eviction being granted to prepare for the removal of his belongings. We found that the association had handled this reasonably, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305770 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a resident of the association, lived in a bedsit but wanted to move to a one bedroomed flat. He was originally allocated overcrowding points in respect of his application, but in April 2013, the association changed their housing policy. This meant that from then on a single person living in a bedsit was considered to be adequately housed and did not have priority. Mr C complained that they did not tell him in advance that the policy was being changed and that, in their response to his complaint, the association failed to specify what part of the housing legislation they were referring to. Further, Mr C complained that the association failed to provide feedback when his expressions of interest about available accommodation were not successful. We found from our investigation that, although the changes to their policy had affected how Mr C's housing need was viewed, the association provided satisfactory evidence that they took action to notify all of their tenants in advance of the proposed changes, and gave them an opportunity to consider and give feedback on the policy whilst it was in draft. We found it reasonable that the association did not provide more specific information about legislation when they responded to Mr C's complaint, but we noted that it would have been helpful if they had referred him to the relevant section about priority on the housing list and allocation of housing. We found that there was a period just after the change in policy when there was a problem with a lack of feedback to tenants. However, this had been resolved, and we saw no evidence that the feedback which was given by the association was incorrect. Related reading View Decision Report 201401463 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) about the way the housing association dealt with her application for housing, including that other tenants had been allocated properties not in accordance with the allocations policy; and that the association did not assess Miss A's medical priority in line with their policy. Miss A had young children, and lived in a property with stairs. After a pregnancy in 2010, she was advised not to lift anything heavy for three months and to take it easy for a year. She, therefore, found it difficult to carry the childrens' pushchair up and down the stairs. As a result of this, and other medical conditions from which she suffered, Miss A became isolated. In 2011 she applied for a larger, ground-floor property, which was considered under the association's housing allocation policy in force at the time. She was allocated to a queuing group for two- and three-bedroom properties for tenants regarded as living in overcrowded conditions. Ms C was concerned that another tenant, in a similar situation to Miss A, had said publicly that she had been rehoused, and also that other tenants had been rehoused ahead of Miss A in properties suitable for Miss A. In mid-2012, Miss A also applied for medical priority points but that application was refused. Miss A was, however, advised that if the Department of Work and Pensions approved her application for disability living allowance (DLA) this could be reconsidered. In January 2013 she asked for a review of the decision on her medical priority and as she had been granted DLA in June 2012, the association granted Miss A medical priority points from then. Their housing allocation policy was then revised in April 2013. At the time of making the complaint to us, Miss A had still not been successful in being rehoused. Our investigation found that Miss A's various applications, including the original application for medical priority, were correctly considered under both the old and curren

Ms C complained that the association had not responded reasonably when she reported noise nuisance from her neighbour, or when another neighbour replaced a section of her boundary fence without prior warning. She also said that an officer had contacted her on her mobile phone without prior agreement that she was happy with this means of contact. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint about noise. We found that the association had followed their policy on neighbour relations and had worked with Ms C's neighbour and family to try to mediate. They had referred Ms C to the council's noise team, and explained that they could not take action against her neighbour without corroborated evidence, and that they had no evidence of excessive noise. They clearly explained how and to whom excessive noise should be reported when it was happening. We also found that their response about the fence was reasonable. The neighbour had not told the association or Ms C that they intended replacing some storm-damaged fencing. When Ms C reported that there were workers in her garden she had not expected, but did not receive an immediate response. The association were not, however, required to respond immediately. They did later check the new section of fencing and establish that it was of a sufficient standard, and they offered to have it painted to match the existing fence. We did uphold the complaint about the phone call. We found that the association should have checked that Ms C was happy for them to use the phone number in question and whether she was expecting a return call. As they had already acknowledged that Ms C had not asked for a return call, upheld her complaint and apologised to her, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201304959 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had on occasion recorded phone conversations with members of the housing association's staff. He was, however, then told that, while calls from customers were recorded, the association's guidance said that staff should decline requests from customers wishing to record calls. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable, and also said that a complaint he had raised was dealt with by a member of senior staff, rather than being escalated to the chief executive. After investigating this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The association confirmed that there was such guidance for customer service staff, but that the decision was generally left to their discretion. However, they had decided that there was a need to unify practice, and said they would review their policy about members of the public recording phone conversations. Once this was completed, customers would be informed. We found this reasonable. We also found that the complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the complaints procedure, and that a designated senior member of staff had replied to Mr C's complaint at the final stage, and signposted Mr C to the SPSO. Related reading View Decision Report 201301242 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C needed a lot of support with housing matters. He was asked to go to his local housing office about a rent matter and called in, expecting to see one of two officers he had dealt with before, but they had both retired. He was introduced to his new housing officer, but was not happy with the way the interview went. Mr C complained about the association’s investigation into his complaint about the housing officer, and also that the association delayed in providing him with the support of another officer. Our investigation found that, although Mr C was unhappy with the association’s investigation of his complaint, they had treated it seriously and dealt with it properly, and gave him appropriate information in their responses. We also found that, after he complained, Mr C was allocated a different housing officer (Officer 2). However, Mr C told the association that he would rather deal with another he knew and was comfortable with (Officer 1). Although we understood why Mr C requested this, he had at that point had no contact with Officer 2, so we did not consider it reasonable to ask the association to change arrangements, given that there had been no problems and that support was available to him. As part of our investigation, we discovered that Officer 1 did not have capacity to support Mr C. However, we also noted that Mr C had not received a reply to his request to be allocated that officer, and we made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C was a tenant of a housing association. There was a leak from the flat upstairs into his house. His bathroom ceiling partially collapsed and it had to be taken down and replaced. Mr C complained that the association delayed in dealing with the collapsed ceiling. He also felt that they unreasonably took down part of the collapsed ceiling without testing for asbestos in the artex coating of the ceiling. Mr C’s flat had been rewired a number of years ago and he also complained that the association had left him exposed to live wires. To investigate these complaints we asked the housing association for documentary evidence of what had happened. We reviewed this, and as we found that the association did take too long to fix the collapsed ceiling, we upheld that complaint. However, we also found that the association had apologised to Mr C and made him a financial payment, and had undertaken to give staff training to ensure that the situation would not happen again. We, therefore, made no recommendations. We did not, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints. The association supplied us with evidence that showed that they had been aware of the existence of asbestos. They were, however, also able to demonstrate that they had undertaken the work with asbestos appropriately, and had carried out atmospheric tests before and after the work to ensure that no fibres had been released. The association also explained that the area of electrical wiring about which Mr C complained was not part of the rewiring work that they had undertaken. Once they were aware of the problem, they rectified it. They then undertook an independent electrical test of his house to reassure him, which confirmed that it was safe. Related reading View Decision Report 201202755 as a PDF (11.49 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had complained to the housing association about cleaning and repairs. He was unhappy with the way the association then dealt with his appeal to their appeals panel. He said they had not presented all the evidence that he forwarded as part of his complaint, and had allowed a named member of staff, whom he said had blocked his attempts to make his complaint, to remain in the room while the panel were considering his complaint. We found that Mr C had presented DVDs, containing a large volume of colour photographs and correspondence, which he asked to be given to each of the panel members. The association had produced the photographs in black and white for the panel members but on the day of the panel meeting had made available a ring binder containing the colour photographs. We found that the association had only included relevant correspondence in the pack made up for the panel members, which we considered to be reasonable. The association's guidance for panel members sets out who will be asked to leave a panel hearing while the matters are discussed, and we found that the named member of staff was entitled to be in attendance. Related reading View Decision Report 201201486 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said the housing association had not properly investigated his complaint that he was being harassed by his housing officer. He said that he was being harassed because he had questioned why he had been issued with a warning about anti-social behaviour. We did not uphold his complaint. We found that the housing association had initially delayed in investigating his complaint but had held two meetings with Mr C to allow him to present any evidence in support of it. The minutes of the meetings showed that Mr C did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of harassment. Related reading View Decision Report 201200899 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018