SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C, who was away from her property at the time of a fire on its roof terrace, complained about the action taken by the Sanctuary (Scotland) Housing Association (SH) following the fire. In particular, Mrs C complained that SH had failed to make reasonable attempts to inform her of the fire which had affected her home; and also, that they had failed to take reasonable action to mitigate the damage to her flat and possessions. Mrs C also complained that SH had unreasonably delayed making effective repairs to her home and that they had failed to reasonably manage the roof terrace. We found that SH had made reasonable attempts to contact Mrs C when they discovered she was away from her property and we did not uphold this aspect of her complaint. We also found that SH had dealt with the matter under their emergency repairs procedure and had secured Mrs C's flat and made it safe. We did not consider that they had failed to take reasonable action to mitigate the damage to her flat and possessions, and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to Mrs C's concerns that there were delays in making effective repairs, SH accepted that there had been a failure to deal with this matter in a timely way, and while Mrs C's home had remained in a habitable condition, they recognised the difficulties Mrs C had experienced and had made a compensation payment prior to our investigation. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. SH also accepted that they had failed to deal with Mrs C's complaint properly. Finally, we found no evidence that SH had failed to manage the roof terrace correctly and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr and Mrs C complained about a number of matters. Firstly, they complained that the association failed to take reasonable and appropriate action in relation to their reports of anti-social behaviour. We found that the association had taken some action in response to these complaints but, following police and court involvement, had delayed in taking further action until these proceedings were complete. We considered this action to be reasonable. Mr and Mrs C's second complaint related to how the association addressed allegations that their neighbours were parking in a manner that caused a nuisance. Mrs C stated that the neighbours repeatedly parked their vehicles in a position that made access to her driveway difficult or impossible. We considered that the association had investigated this matter appropriately and taken action that is reasonable and proportionate, based on the evidence available to them. Mr and Mrs C's third complaint related to their neighbours' CCTV. They state that the CCTV has been used to monitor them and that their neighbours do not have the necessary registration to use it. We found that the association had taken action, including asking the neighbours to change the position of the CCTV, so it does not take in Mr and Mrs C's property. We considered the actions taken by the association to be appropriate and proportionate, given the circumstances at the time. Mr and Mrs C's final complaint related to the association's decision to place restrictions on their communication with them. The association acknowledged that their correspondence in relation to this had not been clear and issued a further letter to Mr and Mrs C clarifying this. We found that the association had explained their reasons for this restriction, explained the procedures put in place and provided details of the appeals procedure. We considered this action to be reasonable. We did not uphold any of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 2017069

Ms C complained about the time taken to remedy problems with her heating system. Ms C had experienced a number of problems with her heating system over a period of several months. We found that some issues, while related to the heating system, were new and distinct from earlier problems and that a number of issues were responded to promptly. However, we also found occasions where engineers failed to attend and repairs took too long. On balance, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the association took an unreasonable amount of time to fix problems she reported about her windows. After Ms C reported an issue, the association attended a number of times, with the contractor, over the next 11  months. We found that there was poor communication with Ms C about what progress was being made to remedy problems with the windows. Ms C had to chase up responses and at the point of reaching a decision on her complaint, there was still disagreement about whether the windows had been fixed properly. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to his requests for repairs to his heating system. Mr C reported the failure of his heating system and the association considered several options including repairing the existing system, replacing it with a new system and disposing of the property altogether. The results of an inspection recommended that the system be replaced. This same recommendation had also been made the previous year, before Mr C had made his complaint. The association replaced the heating system seven months after Mr C made the complaint and responded to his complaint a couple of months after the matter was resolved. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. We found that the association took longer than was reasonable to repair Mr C's heating, did not communicate effectively during this period and did not respond to Mr C in line with their complaints procedure. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the association made offers to Mr C that were roughly equivalent to his rent liability for the period he was without heating.