SPSO Individual Decisions

Miss C is a housing association tenant. There was a serious fire at her property a few years ago and the repairs and refurbishment took some months. When she returned to the property she made complaints about various aspects of the repairs and refurbishment. The association accepted that windows had been incorrectly installed without vents and rectified this. A year later, Miss C experienced electrical issues and raised these with the association. They were resolved but Miss C complained about the time that it had taken to do this. She was also dissatisfied with the association's responses to her reports of electrical problems and brought her complaints to us. We found that the association had reasonably repaired and refurbished her property and that she had been aware that some windows still had to be replaced when she decided to move back in to the property. We found no evidence to support Miss C's views that she had been promised the radiators would be replaced or that the radiators and walls had not been properly cleaned. We also found that the association had acted reasonably in responding to her reports of electrical problems. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201707615 as a PDF (23.85 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

The back door to Mrs C's property had not been properly fitted. Mrs C complained that although the housing association had accepted the door they had fitted was inadequate, the problem had still not been resolved at the point Mrs C left the property, some two years after the problem had first been reported. The association closed the complaint before the work was completed, which meant they were unaware that the work had not been properly carried out. The association had not taken into account adequately the inconvenience to Mrs C of having to pursue the matter for such a long time. Although compensation had been offered, the offer did not appear to comply with the association's compensation policy. We found Mrs C had been treated unreasonably and that the association should have ensured the complaint was dealt with appropriately and provided an offer of compensation which took into account their own internal guidance.

Mrs C complained that when she terminated her tenancy she was only paid compensation for some of the improvements she had made to her former home. In particular, the housing association told her that the conservatory she had erected did not qualify for compensation. Our investigation found that conservatories were not listed as being an improvement qualifying for compensation in either the legislation (Housing (Scotland) Act 2001) or in the association's internal guidance based on the legislation. Mrs C maintained that she had been told verbally by more than one employee of the association that she would receive compensation. However, there was no written evidence of this. The letter giving Mrs C permission to erect the conservatory did not make any reference to compensation. When Mrs C submitted her claim for compensation the association considered it in light of the legislation and guidance. They also took legal advice on whether the conservatory would qualify for compensation. Our view was that the association took reasonable action to consider Mrs C's claim, and so we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406379 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mr C complained about a programme of improvement works carried out by a contractor on behalf of their landlord (the housing association). They complained about the information they were given ahead of the works, and about issues with the quality of the work and damage to their property. They also complained about the way the association and the contractor had handled their complaints. Our investigation found that the association and the contractor had provided reasonable information ahead of the works taking place, though there was a last minute delay in one element of the work, which was unacceptable. The association had already apologised for this and paid compensation. We reviewed the time taken to resolve the range of defects at Mr and Mr C's property, and were critical of the time taken to resolve these issues. In particular, we were critical that a meeting to resolve these issues only appeared to take place because Mr and Mr C had brought their complaint to us. Mr and Mr C complained to both the association and the contractor on different occasions. We found that the responses they received were not proactive and did not reflect the on-going difficulties Mr and Mr C were having. The association went on to conduct a 'lessons learned' exercise, based partly on Mr and Mr C's complaints. This identified several areas of service improvement, though it is not clear that any of these issues would have come to light if Mr and Mr C had complained to us. We were critical of this approach. We were also concerned about the lack of integration between the association's complaints procedure and that of its contractors.