Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

When Mr C, who is a prisoner, went into custody, the prison deemed him fit to work and required him to attend a work party. Mr C complained that this was not appropriate as before he went into prison he had been considered unfit to work, and had not since been assessed otherwise by a prison doctor. He acknowledged that he saw a doctor after going into prison, but said this only concerned his prescription and did not involve an examination or discussion about work. Mr C also said that guidance on his medication advised against working with tools or operating machinery.

In responding to our investigation, the prison said that a doctor had assessed Mr C after admission and deemed him fit for work. They said that the advice from healthcare staff was that there was no reason why prisoners could not work whilst on medication such as Mr C's, as long as they were not required to drive heavy machinery. Although Mr C did not appear to be happy with the medical assessment, this was not a matter for the prison. Their role was to ensure that Mr C was assessed by a doctor after admission to custody and the evidence we saw showed that they had done so. Once healthcare staff told them that Mr C was fit to work, we then considered it reasonable for them to require him to attend a work party.

Summary

Mrs C was issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking in a restricted area and obstructing the road. She complained to us that the council failed to give her the right to appeal the PCN to the parking adjudicator. In considering her complaint, the council explained that they followed the correct process when dealing with the PCN, and had no records of Mrs C requesting an appeal.

Our investigation was unable to obtain evidence from either party to support Mrs C's position. As we could not find additional supporting evidence that she had requested an appeal, we were unable to uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C owns, but does not live in, a flat which is in part of a tenement building. In the building there are 11 other flats occupied by a mixture of private owners and council tenants. One of the tenants on the top floor reported to the council that there was water coming in, and the council arranged an external inspection of the property. The inspection indicated that repairs were needed to prevent further water penetration.

As a co-owner, the council issued a notice of repair to all other current occupiers under the terms of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. This explained the broad legal position about repairs and offered three options for carrying these out. An estimate for the works was enclosed. It was made clear that there had to be a majority decision to proceed or a statutory notice for essential repairs might be needed.

Mr C said that he did not receive the council’s notices, and he complained to the council that they did not deal with the matter in accordance with their tenement management scheme. He also complained that he was unreasonably pressed by the council into making payment, despite his request for the matter to be put on hold while it was under investigation.

Our investigation found that the council had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and their own procedures and, while it was accepted that Mr C did not receive the notices, we also accepted that these were posted to him, which completed the council’s obligations. Through their own investigation, the council had identified that there were some improvements that could be undertaken (for example, it was accepted that the description of the work contained in the statutory notices was not sufficiently accurate and they would be revising their processes in the future).

On looking into the issue of putting on pressure to make payment, we found that the legislation provided that once a majority decision was reached, it was binding on the owners and could be enforced by any owner against another. Accordingly, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) handled the tendering arrangements for a passenger ferry service. Mr C complained that SPT failed to consult appropriately before deciding to award a new contract, issued a misleading statement in their minute of a meeting, and failed to handle Mr C's complaints appropriately.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold Mr C’s complaints. We found that Mr C had not identified any specific duty on SPT to consult, and there appeared to be no obligation for them to do so before the tendering exercise, although they had surveyed passenger numbers and usages of services. Mr C had told us that he was also aware that in answer to an information request, SPT had said that there had been no consultation. He said that this contradicted a minuted statement by a councillor at SPT's March 2012 operations committee meeting. However, we found that the statement was not in fact made by a member of the committee but by a councillor of a local authority that the ferry served, who had been invited to address the committee. Finally, on the complaints handling matter, we found that in pursuing his complaint Mr C had asked for a prompt response. The chief executive had, therefore, intervened - he had provided a prompt response, thus cutting short the published complaints procedure. The reply was informative, and although it was not to Mr C’s satisfaction, we did not find it inappropriate and it did not disadvantage him.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not taken into account his mother’'s (Mrs A's) views and wishes when they decided to defer her application for sheltered housing for six months. We found that the social work department took this decision reasonably based on Mrs A's poor health, the fact that the decision would be subject to constant review given Mrs A was in hospital and thereafter in a nursing home, and that the application could be immediately reactivated should Mrs A's health improve. There was also evidence that Mrs A was assessed by a medical officer and a social worker, and had been found not to be able to make decisions about her own welfare at that time. We noted, however, that the council had sent a letter to Mrs A's home address referring to 'her' recent request to defer the application. This was inaccurate, as Mrs A had not made the request, and we asked the council to ensure that in future their correspondence was accurate.

Mr C also complained that the lock on his mother's council house had been changed against her wishes. The council explained they had changed the lock on instructions of a family member holding Mrs A's power of attorney. (A power of attorney is a legal document that appoints someone to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this.) The council had been provided with the power of attorney documentation, and had accepted that that person was acting on Mrs A's behalf. They also provided different documentation which showed that Mrs A had asked the council to correspond with only that family member in relation to her affairs. On this basis, we found the council's actions in following the instructions of the power of attorney to be reasonable, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had written, without her permission, to her GP about a council tax exemption, which had been granted many years previously on the basis of her mental health disorder. Having obtained the opinion of Ms C's GP the council then removed the exemption, generating a large council tax bill. Ms C said that this was unreasonable given that the council knew she was unwell. The council requested repeat information and forms from Ms C before agreeing to reinstate the exemption.

Our investigation found that, although distressing for Ms C, the actions of the council had not been unreasonable. A query over Ms C's entitlement to an exemption had arisen and the council had a right to investigate. Once they were satisfied that Ms C did qualify for the exemption, having reasonably requested further evidence from a different clinician, it was reinstated.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about aspects of their reasoning in deciding to give planning permission for a development on property adjoining her own. After the council responded to her, she complained to us that their responses had unreasonably ignored some of the specific issues she raised. We investigated the complaint, but considered that the council's responses had reasonably provided all of the information or clarification she had requested.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for a visit to his home about a gas maintenance check. The check on Mr C's home was due, but the council said he had missed the first appointment. Mr C told us that he was at home that day, and that the contractor had not arrived. He said that he received no further correspondence from the council until a contractor’s card was put through his door. He said that the council then attended his property and, although they were granted access by a relative who was there, they ‘capped’ Mr C’s gas and charged an administrative fee. Mr C was unhappy that they had done so.

Our investigation found that the council are required by law to carry out an annual gas safety inspection, and that there are set periods of notice that they need to give tenants about this. There are also steps they can take to gain access if a tenant does not respond. The council had sent three letters to Mr C trying to arrange the inspection, and left two cards at his home when their contractor could not gain access. They had his correct address details on record, had met all the periods of notice they were required to give him about this, and had followed their policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had done nothing wrong and were entitled to charge the administration fee.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C said that in June 2012 a building control officer inspected on-going works to their home extension and verbally told them that the walls complied with building regulations. As a result of this they continued construction. At a further inspection in August, however, some of the works that Mr and Mrs C believed had already been inspected were found not to comply with the approved plans and building regulations. Mr and Mrs C complained about this, saying that, had they known about the problem after the earlier visit, they would have stopped construction until it was resolved.

Our investigation found that the June inspection was solely for the purpose of reviewing the build to the open drain and sub-structure of the extension and did not involve the walls. We also noted that the building control officer wrote to Mr and Mrs C's agent immediately after the August inspection to notify them that aspects of the build did not comply with approved plans and building regulations.

It is the developer's responsibility to construct their development in accordance with the approved plans. The inspection process is not designed to control work on site but simply to examine whether a particular stage of the build being inspected is constructed in accordance with building regulations. As responsibility for ensuring that the build was in accordance with the approved plans fell to Mr and Mrs C, and as the June inspection was solely for the purpose of examining the open drain and sub structure, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C is a housing association tenant. The association arranged to treat dampness in the kitchen of her property, and offered her a contribution towards the costs of redecorating the affected area. Mrs C refused this offer, as she considered it insufficient to cover the full redecoration costs. The association explained that the tenant was responsible for redecoration costs, and that it was not their policy to pay the full costs unless they had been negligent in carrying out the works.

As this was the third time in six years that repair works had been carried out on the same area, Mrs C took the view that the association were at fault in not fixing the problem sooner. The association said that each repair job had addressed a different problem and it was only by coincidence that all three were in the same area. Mrs C also felt that the recent works should have been carried out before her new kitchen was installed, and the association accepted that this had been an oversight on their part. However, as this would have meant the repair would have been considered part of routine improvement works, which do not attract any redecoration allowance, they took the view that Mrs C had in fact benefited from the oversight.

Our investigation reviewed all the available evidence, and we were satisfied that the association had given appropriate consideration to the information from their contractors when assessing the nature and quality of works carried out. We found no evidence to suggest that Mrs C had suffered because of any negligence on the part of the association and, as the level of redecoration allowance offered was in accordance with the criteria set out in their policy, we did not uphold the complaint.