SPSO Individual Decisions

C lived in a property managed by the association. C complained that the property's heating system was inadequate, resulting in high bills despite not heating rooms to an acceptable temperature. C also complained that the property was poorly insulated, suffered from damp, and had a shower that was dangerous to use. Although the association sent engineers to the property to investigate C's complaints, C remained dissatisfied with the action taken and did not feel able to continue living in the property until the maintenance issues were resolved. We found that the association responded to each of C's concerns reasonably. Engineers attended the property to investigate any maintenance issues raised, and repairs or upgrades were made where problems were identified. Whilst C remained dissatisfied with a number of amenities within the property, we were satisfied that the association had acted reasonably and appropriately informed C if they were unable to meet C's requests for upgraded facilities. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201809073 as a PDF (24.18 KB) Updated: June 23, 2021

Mr C complained that the housing association delayed in dealing with water ingress to his home, which he said caused damage to his flooring, but the association would not pay for the damage. Mr C also complained that the association failed to complete repairs to the loft and ceiling in his home. We found that there was no unreasonable delay in the association dealing with the water ingress and, given this, we could not say it was unreasonable that the association would not pay for the damage to Mr C's flooring. We also found, and the association acknowledged, that they should have completed the repairs to Mr C's loft and ceiling much sooner. Given the inconvenience of being left with an incomplete repair and a large hole in the ceiling for an unreasonable period of time over the autumn and winter months, in the specific circumstances of this case, we recommended that the association consider making an ex gratia payment to Mr C.

Mr C complained about the way the housing association had considered his complaints about anti-social neighbours. He did not think they had taken appropriate steps to investigate his concerns about the noise two separate neighbours were making. Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to maladministration by the association. This meant we compared the steps they had taken against the steps their policy said they should have taken for such matters. However, it was not for us to assess whether, or to what extent, Mr C was suffering from anti-social behaviour. The evidence indicated that, although Mr C was unhappy, the association had acted in line with their policy. Mr C had wanted noise monitoring equipment to be installed, but the evidence showed they had contacted the council about this on Mr C's behalf. However, the council said it would be their decision – not the association's – as to whether equipment would be installed. We recognised the significance of this matter for Mr C, but we did not consider the evidence showed that the association had not believed Mr C as he had alleged, or that they failed to investigate matters appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406085 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained that they were having ongoing problems with their central heating and boiler, and that they incurred extra costs in their heating bills as a result of the problems not being fixed. They said that although a significant number of call-outs were made and different faults were addressed, the system was still not working properly. During our investigation the association provided details of the repair history for the property. While it was clear that Mr and Mrs C had made a number of calls to the association about the heating system, we found that the association had responded to reports of faults and that remedial action had generally been carried out in good time. The association had explained that the heating system had been checked on a number of occasions and was found to be working properly. There had been a delay in work being carried out to reposition the thermostat but this would not have prevented the heating system operating properly. There had also been a delay in a leaking radiator being fixed. The association had apologised for these delays. Based on the available evidence, we found that Mr and Mrs C had only once been left without heating for more than a few hours, when they were provided with temporary heaters. The association had also obtained a second opinion about the heating system and had requested an investigation into any cause for higher than normal heating bills. Related reading View Decision Report 201304473 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained to the housing association about their responses to her requests for repairs. The association investigated her complaints and advised her of their conclusions. In some cases they said their responses had been reasonable and in others they found their actions could have been quicker or more effective, and they apologised to Miss C where they felt necessary. Miss C was dissatisfied with the association's response and complained to us. We examined the available evidence and found that, though there were areas where the responses could have been better, overall they had been reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201400045 as a PDF (10.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the housing association's response to a request that her mother's designated parking space be altered. The association considered the request but decided that, taking everything into account, the alteration could not be made. Mrs C complained to us that the association had not taken her mother's personal circumstances into consideration. We found, however, that there was clear evidence that they had considered her mother's circumstances and, based on these, had taken a decision that they were entitled to take. As there was no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the taking of that decision, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201204364 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C was unhappy that the housing association did not make tenants keep their bins in the designated area at the side of a block of flats and instead allowed them to keep them at the entrance. She said that there was often litter strewn over the path and road and it was unsightly, smelly and offensive. We initially found that her complaint had come to us too early, as she had not completed the housing association’s full complaints process. When Mrs C brought her complaint back to us having completed the complaints process she raised a number of issues about this, and about how the association had handled her complaint. We did not uphold her complaints as there was no evidence of service failure or maladministration. Mrs C simply disagreed with the housing association's decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201102664 as a PDF (16.47 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018