Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with a review carried out by consultants for Scottish Canals about moorings and licence prices. Mr C sent feedback to a consultation on the review, and he complained to Scottish Canals.

We explained to Mr C that, by law, we must not investigate action relating to the determination of the amount of any rent or service charge. This meant we could not investigate the evidence base for pricing, or what berthing fees should be charged. However, we did look at how Scottish Canals handled Mr C’s complaint.

We found that Scottish Canals responded to Mr C’s complaint in line with their complaints handling procedure. We found that their responses to Mr C were reasonable. We found evidence that Scottish Canals considered Mr C’s complaint and provided reasoned and rational responses. Given this, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his son (Mr A) regarding the aborted sale of a council owned property. Mr C told us that the council had initially accepted his son's bid for a property they were looking to sell but, due to delays on the part of the council which led to the removal of the mortgage offer, the sale could not go ahead. Mr C was also unhappy that the council had insisted that Mr A pay for a refreshment of the home report, which was required by his lender.

On investigation, we found that there was a period of around four months between the council's acceptance of Mr A's bid and agreement on the terms of sale. The first month of this was due to a change of solicitor required by Mr A's lender. The remaining time was spent in negotiation regarding the terms of the sale, as Mr A requested a change of the boundaries, and had concerns regarding the level of environmental liability that would be placed on him under the standards terms. Throughout these discussions, the council responded to each contact within two weeks, which we considered reasonable given the level of consideration required.

With regards to the home report refreshment, this was only required on the insistence of Mr A's lender. Given this, we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to request that Mr A met the cost. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

The council advertised some land for sale and received a number of offers. Mr C, a chartered surveyor, said that his client (Mr A) made an offer for the land, which was subsequently found to be the highest offer. However, in a report to the council executive, a member of council staff recommended the sale of the land to another bidder who had offered a lesser amount. Mr C complained that the council executive was not given information on the amount of Mr A’s offer, and considered this could have resulted in a different decision being made on the sale.

We acknowledged that the report provided to the council executive was brief and lacking in detailed explanation as to why the recommended offer was considered best value - it simply stated that this was determined following analysis of ‘a number of offers’. We considered that the report could have included a more detailed explanation of why this was the case, particularly as the offer was not the highest. However, having reviewed all relevant information, we were satisfied that the council acted in accordance with their longstanding practice in only providing details of the offer considered to be best value in their report. We noted that the report indicated that a number of offers had been received, and it was open to council executive members to request further information if they wished, as one council member subsequently did. We also considered that the council based their decision about which offer/s to include in the report on a detailed consideration of all the information available, including seeking advice from relevant sources where required.

We concluded that staff did not unreasonably fail to give the council executive relevant information about the offers received for the land and we did not uphold the complaint. However, we fed back our comments about the desirability of a more detailed explanation of ‘best value’ for the council’s consideration.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son. They said that the council failed to provide him with an appropriate child’s plan and that they failed to provide him with an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) application form.

Mr and Mrs C said the child’s plan contained inaccurate and out of date information. However, Mr and Mrs C could not provide any evidence to support this complaint, such as why the plan given to their son was inappropriate or why the plan was inaccurate. We found that Mr and Mrs C had an opportunity to provide comments to their son's school about the child’s plan, and that they could inform the school of any factual inaccuracies they believed there to be. In relation to the EMA form, we found that their son's name was on a distribution list for EMA letters, and that the scheme was widely publicised in the school. We did not uphold Mr and Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s response to his complaint regarding a planning application in his neighbourhood. Mr C said he could not access a copy of the application to comment on it. He felt the council did not reasonably respond to his complaint about this, and were condescending and dismissive of his concerns.

We found that the council carried out a detailed investigation of Mr C’s complaint. Their response dealt with the key issues Mr C raised in his complaint, and it was detailed and factually accurate about the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The response explained what the council did in relation to the application, acknowledged there had been a problem for Mr C accessing the application at the council’s office, and outlined how the failings the council identified would be addressed. We did not find evidence that the council’s response was condescending or dismissive of Mr C's concerns, although we accepted this was Mr C’s perception of the response. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council regarding the allocation of a previous tenancy. She told us that she had repeatedly made clear to the council that she could only accept offers in one specific area very close to her family due to threats of violence from friends of her ex-partner. She said that the council insisted that she expand her areas of preference and this resulted in an offer in an area where she felt unsafe but that she felt forced to accept, as the council had told her she would not receive another offer if she refused. However, she had to leave this property after ongoing disputes with one of her neighbours, a friend of her ex-partner.

On investigation, we did not find any evidence that the council had applied pressure to Miss C to extend her area preferences. It was clear from the documentation, which Miss C had signed to confirm her agreement, that the property offered was in an area she had initially requested, before adding further areas. The council was also able to evidence that they had given due consideration to the suitability of the offer before approaching Miss C and do not appear to have held any information to suggest it was unsuitable. Finally, there was evidence that the council had provided clear information on Miss C's right of appeal, which confirmed that she would receive a further offer if her appeal was successful or be able to accept the original offer if it was not. However, Miss C chose not to appeal the offer. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of reports of anti-social behaviour that she had made about one of her neighbours. Mrs C felt that the council had failed to take sufficient steps to address her neighbours behaviour based on the information that was available to them.

On investigation, we found that the council had followed their policies and procedures and appropriately investigated Mrs C's reports. However, they were limited in the action they could take, as Mrs C's neighbour was at that time believed to be a private homeowner. During the investigations, it came to Mrs C's attention that her neighbour may be privately renting the property and she reported this to the council. She did not have contact details for her neighbour's landlord and there was no record that the property was privately rented under the landlord registration scheme. This meant that the only options available to the council were to ask Mrs C to continue reporting any further incidents to build a body of evidence and refer both parties to mediation. However, Mrs C chose not to make any reports and did not feel it was appropriate to take part in mediation, so the council closed the case.

As the council had correctly followed their policies and procedures, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about their failure to respond to her requests for repairs and concerns about dampness in her home. She also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to her garden fence. In response to Ms C's reports of damp, the council investigated the damp and carried out a number of repairs, however, the problem persisted. It was later discovered that the leak causing the damp was coming from a boiler pipe and this was repaired. The council assessed the repair to the fence as a low priority and only carried out small repairs until the full repair could be completed. Ms C was experiencing complaints from her neighbour as her dog was entering his garden through the fence. She believed that if the council had repaired the fence sooner she would not have had such a difficult relationship with her neighbour. Ms C was unsatisfied with the service she had received from the council, and brought her complaints to us.

Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C's request for repairs within the specified timescale, as per their policy. We found the council took the appropriate steps to investigate the source of the leak and damp, and repaired it without delay. Our investigation also found that the council assessed the repair to the fence as low priority and reminded Ms C of her responsibilities as a dog owner to prevent her dog from entering her neighbour's garden, which in our view was reasonable. We found no evidence that the council failed to carry out the repairs. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C, who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and cognitive/mental health difficulties, said that the council failed to take these matters into account when dealing with her housing transfer. She said that as a consequence, she felt pressured and suffered a breakdown. She said she felt that she was camping in her new home which was unsuitable. She further complained that she was held responsible for repairs to her former home, which was unreasonable.

In response to her complaint, the council said that they had acted in terms of Mrs C's request for single storey accommodation which was suitable for wheelchair access, but that in the 12 years of her being a council tenant prior to her visit to their offices, they had been unaware that she had any medical needs. It was at this time that Mrs C advised of her MS. However, she made no mention of other illnesses or problem for which she required support. Mrs C was subsequently allocated new, ground floor accommodation which she accepted, and shortly afterwards made an application for support mentioning her cognitive and memory problems. Two support staff were allocated to her and worked with her for over a year. They made over 60 visits and she was also helped with her rent. While Mrs C qualified for a removal grant, the council said that this was reduced to take into account repair costs required to put her former home into a lettable condition.

We made further enquiries of the council and found that after Mrs C first advised the council of her request to move, she attended their offices ten months later to confirm her request. The application form she completed indicated that she had MS but no further need for support. It was only after she accepted the offer made to her that Mrs C revealed the extent of her illnesses and her associated needs. Support officers were allocated to help her for an extended period of time and there was no evidence that she had been put under pressure to accept the offer made to her or to rush her move. We also found that on leaving her former home repairs had been outstanding, the costs of which had been deducted from her removal grant in accordance with existing council policy. Mrs C's complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained that his son was not receiving his entitlement of 600 hours a year of free nursery provision and that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the council had followed their policy correctly and that, although there was a small shortfall in the hours provided, they had made efforts to offer additional hours to make up the shortfall. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that there were some aspects of the complaints handling that could have been better, and we have drawn this to the council's attention. However, overall we considered that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.