SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the decision by their housing association to issue them with a final warning in respect of their tenancy following a decision by the police to charge C with two offences in respect of alleged anti-social behaviour. In particular, C stated that the housing association had failed to follow their own anti-social behaviour policy when issuing the warning in that they had not offered C the opportunity to discuss the incidents prior to the final warning being issued. The housing association stated that the decision to issue C with a final warning had been made on the basis that C had breached the terms of their tenancy agreement and was already well aware of the likely consequences for their tenancy if they continued to behave in what the housing association considered to be an anti-social manner following a previous meeting to discuss a separate incident. The housing association also advised that C could not have been invited into the housing association's offices to discuss the incidents giving rise to the police charges prior to issuing the final warning due to the coronavirus restrictions in place at the time. We found that the housing association had failed to follow their policy on antisocial behaviour by proceeding to issue a final warning to C in respect of their tenancy without firstly having offered C the opportunity to discuss the incidents resulting in the police charges. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Please note: In the original version of this summary we defined agoraphobia as 'a fear of being outside'. We should have used the definition 'an anxiety disorder that can cause extreme panic attacks, which causes people to dread and avoid places and situations that may trigger anxiety or panic'. We apologise for this error. Mr C made several complaints to the housing association about the noise levels in his flat. Sound tests were carried out, which showed that the sound levels did not meet the required standards. The association agreed to carry out sound insulation to Mr C's floor and walls, if Mr C moved out of the flat during the works. Mr C was reluctant to do this, as he suffers from agoraphobia (a fear of being outside). Mr C also wanted the association to use specific materials for the works. Following some months of negotiation, the details of the works were agreed. The association agreed that Mr C could stay in the flat during part of the works, and that he would move out on a daily basis during other parts, being escorted to and from temporary accommodation by their staff each day. The association also agreed to use the specific materials that Mr C requested. The works were undertaken over a three month period. Mr C was dissatisfied with the results, and he complained that the association did not use the agreed materials. He was also unhappy with the amount of time taken to complete the works, and was not satisfied with the work carried out in the kitchen recess, which had reduced the space available. He felt that the association had discriminated against him by requiring him to leave the flat unnecessarily and he said that his neighbour had received preferential treatment because works on their flat were carried out within a quicker timeframe, and they were not required to move out. The association did not uphold Mr C's complaint at first, but when he provided photos and video evidence with his complaint to us, they agreed to carry out more investigations