Festive closure

We will close at 5pm on Tuesday 24 December 2024 and reopen at 9am Friday 3 January 2025. You can still submit complaints through our online form, but we won't respond until we reopen.

Decision report 201004240

  • Case ref:
    201004240
  • Date:
    November 2011
  • Body:
    Glen Oaks Housing Association Ltd
  • Sector:
    Housing Associations
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Neighbour problems

Summary
Mr C was a tenant of a housing association for approximately 17 months. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to racial abuse, intimidation and vandalism to his property perpetrated by other tenants and youths in the area. Mr C felt he had been targeted particularly due to his nationality. Mr C presented as homeless to Glasgow City Council having abandoned his tenancy.

He brought his complaints to us as he felt the housing association had failed to follow their anti-social behaviour policy, and had failed to take any effective action to prevent the abuse he had suffered as a tenant.

It was accepted that Mr C had experienced a serious degree of anti-social behaviour. Having reviewed the information provided by the housing association including complaint logs, minutes of meetings, letters to tenants and a contract between themselves and the GCSS (the Glasgow Community Safety Service), we found the association to have followed their policy in relation to Mr C's complaints, particularly in terms of responding timeously, and classifying his case as category A due to the racial nature of the behaviour. We, therefore, did not uphold the first complaint.

However, we did uphold the second complaint, which referred to the association's failure to take any effective action to prevent the abuse. Although the association had installed CCTV on three separate occasions, unfortunately no perpetrators were ever caught or identified as a result. The remedies within the association's policy could not be enforced due to a lack of evidence and identification of suspects. However, we found that the association had placed a clear burden upon Mr C to gather information himself, and that this burden was unreasonable. He had provided individual addresses on a number of occasions, but the association said because Mr C could not identify particular people for particular incidents, they could not act on this information. We felt further enquiries could have been made on the basis of the information provided by Mr C and we upheld this complaint.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• apologise to Mr C for failing to follow up on the information he gave them in relation to incidents.

Updated: March 13, 2018