Summary
Ms C, who is a tenant of the association, complained to us about four issues. Firstly, she complained that the property she rented from the association was not in a tenantable condition. However, the association demonstrated that inspections took place before Ms C moved into the property which indicated that no work was required, and that it was in excellent condition and decorative order. We also found evidence that, by signing her tenancy agreement, Ms C had agreed that the property was in a good and tenantable condition. We were satisfied that the association let the property in a tenantable condition and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.
Ms C was also unhappy that information on service charges was not reasonably clear. The association accepted that they should have provided Ms C with a Service Charge Schedule which would set out the charges that tenants should expect. Although we upheld this complaint we were happy with the association's attempts to resolve this matter prior to our involvement, so we did not make any recommendations.
We told Ms C that we could not uphold her complaint about the association breaching confidentiality because this was a matter for the Information Commissioner's office, who we signposted her to. We did, however, criticise the association because we found that their staff opened and discussed correspondence in an area that was open to members of the public.
Ms C's final complaint related to an allegation that a housing and maintenance officer was unprofessional towards her. The association disputed this and said that their staff member was professional in her dealings with Ms C. As we could not establish the facts beyond what was said in the two differing accounts of what happened, we did not uphold this complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201305568 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018