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.

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

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