SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained that the housing association unreasonably failed to inform her of future service change when they offered her a tenancy. Mrs C signed a tenancy agreement for sheltered accommodation run by the association. Shortly after moving into the accommodation she was advised that the service provision was likely to change due to changes to funding provided by the local council. Mrs C complained that the association was aware of this change when she was offered her tenancy agreement. We found that the change to funding provision was confirmed three working days before the offer of tenancy was made to Mrs C. A plan on how to communicate the new circumstances was agreed on the same day the offer of tenancy was made. Mrs C signed the tenancy agreement two days later. Given the short timeframe between the confirmation of change of funding, the initially unknown impact on what the future service provision would look like, and the need for the association to communicate the change to staff before tenants and prospective tenants, we found that the actions of the association were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We noted that, in recognition of the upset the situation had caused, the association had agreed to make a donation to a charity of Mrs C's choice. Mrs C also complained that a letter addressed to her was unreasonably opened by a member of staff. In their response to the complaint the association advised that, as they did not have evidence that the letter was addressed specifically to Mrs C, they could not uphold the complaint. In the course of our investigation a copy of the letter was provided which showed that it was addressed specifically to Mrs C. We upheld the complaint, though as the association had already revised their decision, upheld the complaint and apologised, we made no further recommendations. . Related reading View Decision Report 201800052 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to reasonably investigate and respond to complaints she raised about her exclusion from a communal area within the residential development in which she lived. We found evidence that the association carried out a suitable investigation after Mrs C complained about the decision. We found the association had taken sensible and sensitive steps to bring about a resolution. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201604921 as a PDF (10.79 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C's grandmother (Ms D) had lived in accommodation owned by the association, but moved to a nursing home. When the tenancy ended, Ms C visited and arranged for a courier to pick up some of her grandmother's possessions. These were items of sentimental value that Ms C wanted to put in storage, as she lived overseas. The association arranged to have the flat cleared and when the courier arrived, some of the items Ms C had hoped to keep were no longer in the flat. Ms C said that she had made the association aware of the items she wanted to keep, and so they had known these were being kept separately in a cupboard. However, the association said that the lease made it clear that it was the tenant's responsibility to clear a flat (although they could arrange this for a charge) and that they had not known how many items were to be retained. They also said that it was not their responsibility to ensure that Ms C's courier was able to pick these up. Although the paperwork did indicate that the association knew Ms C wanted to keep some items, we found that this had been based on a verbal discussion. In addition, our investigation found that the association's policy confirmed that it was a tenant's responsibility to clear their property. Although we sympathised with Ms C's position and recognised her loss, we did not uphold her complaint. However, in light of the difficulties that Ms C indicated she had contacting the association from overseas, we made two recommendations.