SPSO Individual Decisions

Miss C complained that the housing association unreasonably failed to carry out work on her kitchen to the agreed specifications. Miss C raised a number of concerns, including that the association failed to supply and fit a breakfast bar and that the work took longer than the three days suggested by the association. Miss C said that she had to pay to have the breakfast bar installed and that the delay in the completion of the work meant that her daughter, who has a learning disability, had to stay in a caravan for a further week, and Miss C had to pay for this extra week's accommodation. The evidence suggested that the association agreed to fit a hinged breakfast bar in Miss C's kitchen. The association said that when Miss C's tall fridge freezer was put back in place it was clear that the hinged breakfast bar could not be included in the design. However, Miss C said that she had an under counter fridge, not a tall fridge freezer, when the kitchen was planned and fitted, so the breakfast bar could have been included. We did not see clear evidence that a breakfast bar could not be fitted or evidence that the change in position was explained and confirmed to Miss C at the time. We concluded that the association unreasonably failed to carry out the works to Miss C's kitchen to the agreed specifications and we upheld Miss C's complaint. It appeared that the reason the work in Miss C's kitchen took longer than expected was due to extensive re-plastering of the kitchen walls and this appeared to have been caused by the removal of Miss C's kitchen wallpaper. There was no documentary evidence indicating that, as Miss C suggested, the association told Miss C to remove the kitchen wallpaper. In these circumstances, we did not see evidence that the association acted unreasonably in this regard.

Mrs C owns and rents out a house. She and her tenant have a right of access via a garden path. This is a mutual path shared with her neighbour, who is a tenant of WHM. Over a period of time Mrs C experienced problems with access, and the neighbour also blocked pedestrian access to the rear of the property. Mrs C asked WHM to enforce the terms of their tenancy agreement. WHM reminded their tenant that there was a communal right to access and suggested that Mrs C report relevant incidents to the police, which she did. WHM also arranged mediation but this failed when the tenant concerned withdrew from it. Mrs C continued to experience problems with access and at one point the neighbour locked the gate to the back of the property. Meanwhile both she and the neighbour concerned gave different accounts of events and made various allegations about the other. Mrs C eventually complained to us that WHM delayed in handling her complaint, failed to keep her updated and did not take appropriate action to resolve the problem. We upheld all Mrs C’s complaints. When we investigated we found that, although WHM initially responded quickly to Mrs C’s complaint, delays occurred after the idea of mediation was introduced. Where mediation is agreed to try to resolve a complaint, it should be conducted as soon as practicable. That did not happen here. However, as a result of her complaint Mrs C received an apology from WHM’s chief executive, and an assurance that improvements had been put in place to try to ensure that such delays do not happen again. We therefore made no recommendations about this. We did, however, recommend that WHM improve their telephone record policy. On keeping Mrs C updated, we found that WHM replied to her concerns and questions when she contacted them. However, we found no evidence that they tried to keep her updated on what was happening while they tried to arrange mediation. Finally, in terms of the action they took to resolve the problem, we found that WHM’s