SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained that the housing association failed to offer a suitable resolution to her complaint about the condition of her garden. Our investigation found that the association investigated Ms C's concerns and explored what steps could be taken to improve the condition of her garden. They advised Ms C of their proposed solution but she was unhappy with that. However, we were satisfied that the association were entitled to decide what action to take in an effort to improve the condition of Ms C's garden. The fact that Ms C did not like the solution offered was not evidence that the association had failed to offer a suitable resolution and, because of that, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. In addition, Ms C complained that the association failed to deal with her complaint appropriately. However, after reviewing all of the evidence available, we were satisfied that the association took Ms C's complaint seriously and investigated the matter appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201202680 as a PDF (11.03 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) who is a tenant of a housing partnership. The flat above Ms A has been let to a charity which houses young people who have been in trouble with the police or who need help with problems. Mr C said the housing partnership did not discuss this with Ms A or her neighbours, and that she has been bombarded by noise, parties and, on one occasion, water coming through her ceiling. We did not uphold the complaint. Our investigation found that the partnership had followed their own policies and procedures and allocated the property to the charity appropriately. We also found that Ms A had not initially reported any instances of antisocial behaviour and that the partnership had advised her that if she did so, they would take the appropriate action. Related reading View Decision Report 201201288 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C suffers from a chronic, degenerative back condition and had since 2009 been in contact with housing partnership about draughts in his home, water coming in around his front door and the replacement of his solid fuel heating system. He provided evidence from his occupational therapist and GP that he was unable to cope with his heating system and the cold, draughty conditions in his home. The partnership attended Mr C’s property on a number of occasions to carry out repairs to the windows and doors. Mr C considered, however, that the repairs carried out were inadequate and temporary. He said that the partnership should have replaced his windows to resolve the problem. The partnership told Mr C that they had a programme of replacement windows and heating systems for all of their stock and that his home was on their list for renewal. However, they advised that they would not be able to do either piece of work until after 2015. During the course of his correspondence with the partnership, Mr C had also asked them to resolve a number of issues for him, including making a number of minor disability adjustments to his home, providing flooring and giving him an immediate transfer and moving costs. The partnership carried out a number of adaptations at the request of his occupational therapist, and placed him on their transfer register with medium priority. However, they refused to immediately transfer him, pay for his moving costs or pay for floor coverings. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the heating system as our investigation found that the partnership’s funding arrangements allowed them to consider replacing the system as a disability adaptation, but that they had failed to consider this. We did not uphold his other complaints as we found that the partnership had taken appropriate steps in relation to repairs to the property and in response to Mr C’s needs. We did not consider that it was reasonable for the partnership to carry out the further changes that Mr C had