• Case ref:
  • Date:
    March 2019
  • Body:
    Sanctuary (Scotland) Housing Association Ltd
  • Sector(s):
    Housing Associations
  • Subject:
    neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations


Mr and Mrs C complained about a number of matters. Firstly, they complained that the association failed to take reasonable and appropriate action in relation to their reports of anti-social behaviour. We found that the association had taken some action in response to these complaints but, following police and court involvement, had delayed in taking further action until these proceedings were complete. We considered this action to be reasonable.

Mr and Mrs C's second complaint related to how the association addressed allegations that their neighbours were parking in a manner that caused a nuisance. Mrs C stated that the neighbours repeatedly parked their vehicles in a position that made access to her driveway difficult or impossible. We considered that the association had investigated this matter appropriately and taken action that is reasonable and proportionate, based on the evidence available to them.

Mr and Mrs C's third complaint related to their neighbours' CCTV. They state that the CCTV has been used to monitor them and that their neighbours do not have the necessary registration to use it. We found that the association had taken action, including asking the neighbours to change the position of the CCTV, so it does not take in Mr and Mrs C's property. We considered the actions taken by the association to be appropriate and proportionate, given the circumstances at the time.

Mr and Mrs C's final complaint related to the association's decision to place restrictions on their communication with them. The association acknowledged that their correspondence in relation to this had not been clear and issued a further letter to Mr and Mrs C clarifying this. We found that the association had explained their reasons for this restriction, explained the procedures put in place and provided details of the appeals procedure. We considered this action to be reasonable.

We did not uphold any of Mr and Mrs C's complaints.