SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the housing association were unreasonably seeking to recover monies from him following his termination of the tenancy. The association were claiming monies to carry out repairs to the property and to redecorate. In addition, they had applied charges for cleaning both the inside of the property and the garden. Mr C was also unhappy that the association had not refunded rent he paid in advance at the commencement of his tenancy. The association had explained that when Mr C terminated his tenancy, they had inspected the property and noted that he had not cleared the property, as he was required to do, that a number of doors needed replacing and that the entire property required redecoration. As Mr C was required to leave the property in reasonable condition at the end of his tenancy, the association were seeking to charge the costs of these repairs to him. They also advised that they did not intend refunding any rent to him. We noted that the property was in a very poor condition when Mr C departed. We noted that he had accepted that the property was in a good condition when he took on the tenancy and we also considered Mr C's responsibility, under the tenancy agreement, to ensure that the property was in a reasonable condition when the tenancy was terminated. We were satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that he had left the property in a poor condition and that the association were entitled to seek to recover these reasonable costs from him. We also noted that there was a credit balance on his rent account but that the association intended to apply this to the outstanding charges. As we were satisfied that the association had acted reasonably in attending to this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601169 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C told us that his landlord, the housing association, did not take reasonable action when he reported noise from loose floorboards in the flat upstairs. While Mr C’s home was not as well sound-proofed as a newly built property would be, there was no evidence that it did not meet the Scottish Housing Quality Standard. The association had offered to come and have a final look at the floorboards to see if there was anything further they could do. We found there were some failings on the part of the association in concluding Mr C’s complaint in a timely manner, but they did all they could to improve the level of noise Mr C had been experiencing. They carried out repairs on three occasions and also did acoustic testing. While communication from the association could have been better, during the handling of Mr C’s complaint and after remedial work was completed, the actions taken were reasonable ones. At the time of our decision they were having difficulty arranging a mutually agreeable time between Mr C and his upstairs neighbour. We explained to Mr C that the association had no control over his availability or that of his neighbour and that they had a limited amount of resources both in financial terms and in respect of the amount of time they could reasonably be expected to devote to this issue. We suggested to Mr C he agree to an appointment being arranged around his neighbour’s availability and at their convenience in order to allow the association the best chance of arranging an appointment. We noted that the association had offered Mr C the option of being re-housed. Given that the evidence from previous remedial works was that the works had not offered a permanent solution to the disruption he experienced, we suggested he gave the association’s offer careful thought. Related reading View Decision Report 201404159 as a PDF (11.48 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a tenant of a housing association for approximately 17 months. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to racial abuse, intimidation and vandalism to his property perpetrated by other tenants and youths in the area. Mr C felt he had been targeted particularly due to his nationality. Mr C presented as homeless to Glasgow City Council having abandoned his tenancy. He brought his complaints to us as he felt the housing association had failed to follow their anti-social behaviour policy, and had failed to take any effective action to prevent the abuse he had suffered as a tenant. It was accepted that Mr C had experienced a serious degree of anti-social behaviour. Having reviewed the information provided by the housing association including complaint logs, minutes of meetings, letters to tenants and a contract between themselves and the GCSS (the Glasgow Community Safety Service), we found the association to have followed their policy in relation to Mr C's complaints, particularly in terms of responding timeously, and classifying his case as category A due to the racial nature of the behaviour. We, therefore, did not uphold the first complaint. However, we did uphold the second complaint, which referred to the association's failure to take any effective action to prevent the abuse. Although the association had installed CCTV on three separate occasions, unfortunately no perpetrators were ever caught or identified as a result. The remedies within the association's policy could not be enforced due to a lack of evidence and identification of suspects. However, we found that the association had placed a clear burden upon Mr C to gather information himself, and that this burden was unreasonable. He had provided individual addresses on a number of occasions, but the association said because Mr C could not identify particular people for particular incidents, they could not act on this information. We felt further enquiries could have been m