SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to their reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour. We found that the association unreasonably concluded that a number C’s reports did not amount to anti social behaviour (ASB). We also found that the reports that the association did consider to include ASB were not dealt with in line with the guidance and policy documents that the association provided. This included failures to acknowledge reports, reasonably complete forms, undertake checks of previous incidents, undertake (or make proper records of) interviews and log reports within a reasonable time. We found that the association provided inaccurate information to C about their use of CCTV footage in the investigation of reports of ASB and did not reasonably respond to C’s complaints about the handling of the ASB reports. We upheld this part of C’s complaint. C complained that the association did not take reasonable action to address issues regarding an allocated parking bay for their property. When C accepted their tenancy they understood it included a dedicated disabled parking bay but this was being regularly used by others. The association told C that numbered parking bays are not included or detailed as part of individual tenancies but continued to explore options to indicate the bay was for C’s use. We found that the association took an unreasonable length of time to substantively respond to the parking bay issues C raised. We upheld this part of C’s complaint. C complained that the association did not take reasonable action to address issues with their heating and hot water systems. We found that the length of time C waited for repairs to the heating and hot water system was unacceptable. We also found that the association had unreasonably concluded C’s complaints had been resolved before the effectiveness of an intended repair had been confirmed. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained about the association’s response to anti-social behaviour. C said this had been continual since they moved into their property. It was affecting them and in particular, their child. C said that the association had failed to take meaningful action, or follow up properly on their reports. C believed that they had been misled about what the association would do and the evidence they submitted had been disregarded. We found that the association had followed their procedures and could evidence the action they had taken in response to C’s complaints. This included liaising with Police Scotland, contacting the tenant responsible and canvassing other residents for corroborating evidence. We found that the association had been restricted by limitations imposed on staff by COVID-19, but that they had responded reasonably and appropriately to C’s concerns. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. C also said their complaint had been investigated by members of staff they specifically did not want involved in their complaint. The association had acknowledged this and said this was due to human error on the part of staff who had recorded the complaint. They had failed to note C’s concerns, resulting in the complaint being allocated to the wrong person. We found that the association had taken the appropriate action to address this mistake. We also found that although C had been concerned about this, there was no evidence it had materially affected the investigation of their complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202100726 as a PDF (24.42 KB) Updated: November 17, 2021

C complained about the condition of the flat that they had moved into and the way the association had handled their reports of disrepair and their subsequent complaint. C felt that they had been pressured into accepting a property which was not fit for human habitation. C said that the association had been obstructive and bullying, ignoring both C and their partner's significant health issues, as well as their new baby. We found that the association had accepted that the flat C moved into had required work, which should have been identified and carried out while it was empty. The association had apologised for this and paid C £500 compensation. C had also been provided with vouchers to assist with their decorating costs. We found that the association's actions were reasonable; although it was not disputed the flat's condition had fallen below a reasonable standard, the association had recognised this, met with C, apologised, paid them compensation and arranged for repair work to be carried out within the property. Some of the issues C had raised were not the responsibility of the association, such as pest control and the decoration of the flat internally. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint but made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201911608 as a PDF (24.29 KB) Updated: July 21, 2021

C moved into their property and began experiencing antisocial behaviour from their neighbours. C complained to the association about their handling of C's reports of antisocial behaviour. We sought information from the association about C's reports. As part of that, we saw evidence which related to C's neighbours but that we could not share for reasons of confidentiality and data protection. We found that the association took action to investigate each of C's reports. These actions were undertaken promptly. Some contact from the association took longer than their policy specified, however in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was reasonable. Information relevant to the investigations was sought from external agencies and relevant investigations were undertaken by association staff. Staff were not able to corroborate all the incidents reported to them. Sometimes there were no other witnesses to the incidents and sometimes it was determined that the noise was not excessive or antisocial. We were satisfied that the association had investigated each report of antisocial behaviour made to them and that they had taken appropriate action when those incidents had been corroborated. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202006018 as a PDF (24.28 KB) Updated: July 21, 2021

Ms C contacted us on behalf of Ms A, as she had concerns that the housing association had failed to respond to their concerns about disrepair in their house. Ms C said there were also concerns about the association failing to respond to complaints about anti-social behaviour and requests for repairs. Ms C told us that Ms A was classed as a vulnerable adult and suffered from poor mental and physical health. These issues were being exacerbated by the association's failures. We found that some of the repair issues had been addressed and that some of Ms C's complaints had been upheld by the association in respect of a failure to investigate anti-social behaviour complaints. We also found that the responsible housing officer was on long-term leave, and that this had caused difficulties in determining whether issues had been raised with them by Ms C or Ms A. We found that the association could evidence their response to complaints of disrepair and that investigations and work had been carried out. Additionally, some of the issues being raised by Ms C, such as decoration within the property, were not repair issues. We also found that the association had offered to address any issues which Ms C believed to be outstanding and also to review any emails which Ms C felt she had not received an adequate response to. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201903851 as a PDF (24.35 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mr C complained that the association had responded unreasonably to his complaints of anti-social behaviour and his request to move home in response to this. We found that the association had not followed procedures as set out in their anti-social behaviour and allocation policies. In relation to the complaints of anti-social behaviour, we found that timescales were not met, there was no evidence that Mr C was supported or a resolution sought and Mr C was not communicated with reasonably. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The association failed to respond reasonably to Mr C's request to move home. It was found that Mr C was not informed of the outcome of his request to move, there was no evidence that the request was discussed with the Area Housing Manager or Area Director as was procedure, or that Mr C was notified of the decision to refuse his request. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the association responded unreasonably to reports of water ingress in her home. We found that the association responded to each fault within the timescales set out in their repairs and maintenance policy, acknowledged the inconvenience caused and offered a goodwill payment. We considered that this response was reasonable and did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801841 as a PDF (10.74 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018