Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her elderly mother (Mrs A), who had been served with a summary warrant for non-payment of council tax. Mrs C said her mother had not received the necessary reminder letters that should be issued when a council tax instalment is not paid on the due date. She believed that the council had failed to follow the correct process and was unhappy that a summary warrant was served and a bill for late payment issued in addition to Mrs A's council tax. She remained dissatisfied with what she saw as the council's unsympathetic response after she had made them aware that her mother had suffered two strokes in the last eighteen months which had left her unwell, disorientated and confused.

Although we appreciated that Mrs A had been unwell, there was evidence that she had been made aware of her responsibility to pay council tax and what would happen if she did not pay on the due date. We checked and were satisfied that the council had issued the reminder letters, noting that they have a duty to collect council tax in accordance with the legislation and are not able to take individual circumstances into account in the way Mrs C had thought they should. There was no evidence to show that the letters were not delivered, and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint as there was nothing to suggest that the council had done anything wrong.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council were seeking to recover outstanding council tax for a property he rented in 2010. He was unhappy because before terminating the lease he had contacted the council and was told that, as the lease was for less than six months, the landlord would be responsible for the council tax. He explained that he had not got back his deposit on the flat, as the landlord had said they would use it to pay any outstanding council tax. The landlord did not, however, do so.

In response to his complaint, the council acknowledged that they gave Mr C inaccurate information when he contacted them. However, they said that after this call they had obtained copies of his lease, which showed it was a six month contract and not a shorter one, as had been understood from the earlier contact. As the lease was for six months, Mr C was due to pay the council tax, even if the lease was terminated early.

We considered the information provided by both Mr C and the council. We were satisfied that the original lease had been for six months and so the council were entitled to seek council tax from him, and not the landlord. Although we could see that they had told Mr C that he would not be liable for council tax as the lease was under six months, we could not say whether they told him this in error, or because he did not give full details of the original lease. As Mr C was liable for the outstanding council tax, and as we could not determine the basis on which the council advised him that he would not be liable, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council restricted her access to the noise complaint reporting system and failed to acknowledge her concerns as complaints about antisocial behaviour. She also complained that they unreasonably imposed restrictions on her contact with them, through their unacceptable actions policy.

Our investigation found that Miss C had met the criteria for bringing their policy into effect, in terms of both her behaviour and her demands. We also found that, although the council had told her they would not in future respond to Miss C's emails or phone calls, they had put in place alternative means for her to complain about antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance and had continued to receive and respond to her letters. We did not uphold her complaints, as we found no evidence that the council had breached their policy, and noted they had committed to a regular review of the restrictions imposed on Miss C.

Summary

Ms C told us that when she decided to move house, she gave notice to the council and moved to a private tenancy. No one checked the house before she left. A few months later, the council invoiced her for a large sum of money. The council said that this represented the cost of various repair and reinstatement works for which she was responsible under the terms of her tenancy agreement. While Ms C agreed that she might be liable for some of the cost, she said that the remainder was the responsibility of the previous tenant.

Our investigation found that Ms C's tenancy agreement was created when she took over the tenancy from a relative, with whom she had lived. This type of tenancy did not require an exit check when Ms C's relative moved out, and so in signing her own tenancy agreement, Ms C had assumed responsibility for the condition of the property. The council told us that after Ms C left the property, they inspected it and found that it was not in lettable condition. Repairs, reinstatement and cleaning works were required. The council had then charged Ms C for these, under the terms of her tenancy agreement. Although Ms C felt that she had been overcharged, we found no evidence of this.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not acted appropriately over a noise nuisance that he said affected his home. He was also unhappy with their planning process. He told us that the council had delayed in taking action over noise nuisance and had been unduly accommodating to the company operating the site involved. He also said that his complaints had not been investigated properly and that council departments had failed to liaise about the problem. He told us that this resulted in the planning department failing to carry out a noise impact assessment, even though a freedom of information request had identified previous complaints about noise from the site.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as the evidence showed that the council had rigorously investigated his concerns, including carrying out tests, and that no statutory noise nuisance was established at his property. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who confirmed that the council had acted appropriately when they accepted and approved a retrospective planning application from the company operating the site.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live in a housing association property. There was a history of noise and other antisocial behaviour from neighbours, and Mr and Mrs C had reported this many times. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council, who were partners in a protocol along with the association, did not respond reasonably to reports of noise nuisance over an 18-month period. They also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to a letter expressing dissatisfaction with how their complaint had been dealt with.

A local councillor had earlier raised Mr and Mrs C's concerns with the association and with council officers, and asked if noise monitoring equipment might be provided in their home. Mr and Mrs C were, however, asked to contact the police when noise nuisance arose and noise monitoring equipment was not provided until after they had formally complained to the council. We did not, however, uphold this complaint because the council explained why they had not installed the equipment, and we found that their actions had otherwise been reasonable. We also found that the council had handled Mr and Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action over a number of breaches of planning conditions on a local site. Work on the site had stopped with only one of the planned houses completed. Mr C complained that the breaches of planning conditions had left the site unsafe, and that failing to enforce these conditions would set a precedent that allowed developers to ignore them without fear of enforcement.

We took independent advice on this from our planning adviser. He confirmed that the council were correct when they told Mr C that they were entitled to exercise their discretion in deciding whether it was an appropriate use of resources to pursue a breach of planning conditions. The council also had to consider whether enforcement was in the public interest, and had to take into account government advice that developers struggling to complete works due to financial pressures should not be placed under an additional burden by enforcement action for technical breaches of planning conditions.

Our investigation found that although the council had mistakenly said that one condition had been met fully when it had not, they had now taken enforcement action against the developer on this. The council were using their discretionary powers when considering whether or not to take enforcement action and had acted in accordance with Scottish Government guidance on planning enforcement. It was clear that there was no maladministration or service failure by the council and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had on occasion recorded phone conversations with members of the housing association's staff. He was, however, then told that, while calls from customers were recorded, the association's guidance said that staff should decline requests from customers wishing to record calls. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable, and also said that a complaint he had raised was dealt with by a member of senior staff, rather than being escalated to the chief executive.

After investigating this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The association confirmed that there was such guidance for customer service staff, but that the decision was generally left to their discretion. However, they had decided that there was a need to unify practice, and said they would review their policy about members of the public recording phone conversations. Once this was completed, customers would be informed. We found this reasonable. We also found that the complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the complaints procedure, and that a designated senior member of staff had replied to Mr C's complaint at the final stage, and signposted Mr C to the SPSO.

Summary

Mr C attended his medical practice suffering from vomiting, diarrhoea and pains in his stomach. A GP diagnosed gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach and intestines) but some five days later Mr C was taken to hospital, where it was found that his appendix had burst, leading to peritonitis (inflammation of the tissue lining the abdomen). He had to have further surgery when he developed complications including kidney problems and a haematoma (a localised collection of blood outside the blood vessels). Three months after the original appendectomy he developed a fistula (an abnormal opening between organs) which had to be closed with a skin graft.

Mr C complained to us that the GP failed to diagnose that he was suffering from appendicitis. We took independent advice on this from one of our medical advisers, and did not uphold the complaint. The adviser said that the GP had made a reasonable assessment and diagnosis of Mr C's symptoms, which were highly suggestive of gastroenteritis. The GP had asked Mr C to return to be reviewed if his symptoms did not settle down, but he did not do this. Our adviser pointed out that there is a shared responsibility between doctor and patient, and it was not the doctor's responsibility that Mr C did not return when his symptoms did not improve.

Summary

After Mr C's daughter (Mrs A) experienced several episodes of breathlessness, she was seen by her GP who concluded she had a virus. Over the following days, Mrs A remained breathless. She collapsed at home and her GP was called out. He found that her blood pressure was low, but rising. He concluded that she had had a vasovagal episode (a temporary loss of blood to the brain) but was improving. Mrs A had further collapses over the following days. An ambulance was called on one occasion, but was cancelled when Mrs A became more alert. However, an ambulance was again called later that day after Mrs A collapsed for a second time. The ambulance crew reportedly helped her into bed, but said that there was not much more that could be done at that point, even if they took her to hospital. Mrs A continued to struggle with her breathing the next day and, in the early hours of the following morning, an ambulance crew attended and took her to hospital. Shortly after arriving there, Mrs A collapsed and, despite attempts to revive her, she died. Mrs A was found to have had a pulmonary embolism (a blockage in the artery that transports blood to the lungs). Mr C felt that Mrs A might have survived had an ambulance crew taken her to hospital after the first attendance, or had the crew that did eventually take her to hospital acted with more urgency.

We were satisfied that the ambulance crews obtained relevant information about Mrs A's recent symptoms and carried out thorough examinations during both attendances. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who said that Mrs A was displaying two symptoms that could indicate pulmonary embolism, but that these were also consistent with other more common illnesses, including viral infection. We concluded that although with hindsight it was evident that Mrs A's symptoms were related to a serious underlying condition, this would not have been apparent to the ambulance crews when they attended. Although the consequences were tragic for Mrs A and her family, we found that the ambulance crews' assessments and conclusions were reasonable under the circumstances.