SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr A was a tenant of the association. Mrs C, who is a support worker, complained on his behalf that the association did not deal competently with his complaints about gas safety concerns. From the evidence we saw, however, we were satisfied that the association acted appropriately to deal with these. Mrs C also complained that the association did not provide adequate and appropriate assistance to Mr A when there was no heating or hot water in his home over a weekend in October. They had offered Mr A a small amount in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him, which he had not accepted. Our investigation found that Mr A had undergone surgery, which required him to be careful about his personal hygiene, and he also had temporary care of his young son. The association were aware of his personal circumstances and Mrs C had raised concerns with them about the lack of heating or hot water in Mr A’s property that weekend. The association’s response was to suggest that Mr A should contact family or friends to see if he could stay with them and/or use their washing facilities or use the local swimming pool over the weekend. They also supplied him with two temporary heaters. Given the time of year, Mr A’s state of health and the fact that he had his son in his care, we considered Mr A’s situation to be an emergency. We found that the association had failed to properly appreciate the adverse effects the problem had on him and his son and had not taken all reasonable action to help him, and the recommendations we made reflect this. Mr A also claimed reimbursement for additional gas usage, which the association refused based on the evidence he gave them. We were satisfied that this decision was reasonable, although we made a recommendation as we thought that the association should have been more proactive in communicating the findings to Mr A or Mrs C.

Mrs C complained that the housing association had delayed in carrying out a repair to her property. During consideration of this complaint, Mrs C raised a number of additional issues that had not been considered under the association's complaints process. This meant that the complaint had come to us too early. As a result, we closed it, to allow Mrs C to raise the additional issues with the association. Related reading View Decision Report 201004812 as a PDF (13.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C had been renting her property from a housing association for eight years when she was notified that her rent was reducing. She was told that this was because the association had decided to withdraw their Tenants Improvement Scheme (the scheme) which allowed tenants to ask for improvements to their properties and pay a supplementary rent. The previous tenant had asked that the bath be replaced with a shower. This had been done under the scheme, so Mrs C's rent included an additional charge for the shower. Mrs C said she was not aware of this, and did not think she should have to pay for an improvement requested by a previous tenant. We found that the association had complied with the Housing Scotland Act, their own Rent Setting Policy and the scheme. In addition, we found that the Tenancy Agreement that Mrs C had signed made clear that the rent she was asked to pay reflected the standard of housing she was being offered and the fixtures and fittings within the property. Related reading View Decision Report 201100132 as a PDF (13.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018