Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C said that until Business Stream contacted him, he was unaware of his liability to pay water/waste charges to them. He said he had asked for a site visit but no-one came. He then received a bill backdated to May 2008 but the supply address was incorrect and he was concerned that he was being charged for the wrong premises. He said he had been in the same premises since 2007 and did not understand why it had taken Business Stream so long to realise he was there. He also said that they had given him conflicting information by assuring him that his account was on hold while his complaints were looked into, then pursuing him for payment and charges.

From 1 April 2008 all businesses with a water/waste supply are obliged to register with a licensed provider and pay for their service. The fact that Mr C was unaware of his responsibility to do so does not affect the fact that he is liable for water charges. We found no evidence that he had requested a site visit or of any undertaking from Business Stream to perform one. Business Stream said that as another street ran onto the street where Mr C’s premises are located there may have been an input error into their system. They confirmed that the water meter concerned serves only Mr C’s premises, and they amended the address on their system to ensure that the correct address appears on future bills. They also explained that they picked this up during an initiative to identify businesses that were not registered with a licensed provider (in which case Business Stream becomes the licensed provider by default). Business Stream confirmed that Mr C’s account was on hold while his complaints were investigated. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that Business Stream had followed the appropriate procedures.

Summary

Mr C decided to change his licensed provider for water and waste water. Just before the change, Scottish Water replaced the water meter serving his business premises. Mr C complained to Business Stream that he received no advance notice of this, and was unable to check and verify either the final meter reading or that the new meter was set to zero. Business Stream told Mr C that Scottish Water’s actions were acceptable, but Mr C remained concerned that a mistake could have been made, and that his final bill could be incorrect.

Our investigation confirmed that, under the relevant operational code, if Scottish Water wish to change a meter they are required to notify the licensed provider, and give them 20 business days notice. Business Stream confirmed that they had received the appropriate notice, and provided evidence of this. They also confirmed that, under the standard terms and conditions of their agreement with Mr C, neither they nor Scottish Water were required to contact him before the meter exchange took place. However, they were able to ask Scottish Water for access to the removed meter, as it is a requirement that these are retained for six months following an exchange of meter. This showed that the meter reading in Mr C’s final account was correct and that the exchanged meter was set at zero. As there was no requirement to notify Mr C and no evidence to suggest that the billing was incorrect, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C who were housing association tenants raised their concern about the condition of their back garden. A joint visit by the council and the housing association to view the condition of the garden had been carried out in 2007. The complainants were unhappy with that visit and disagreed with the accuracy of the report prepared by the council following the visit in 2007. They were dissatisfied that the council had now advised them that they would not inspect their back garden.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the matter. The council's social work service had visited the property in 2006 and had made a number of recommendations to the housing association in line with their social work responsibilities. At the request of social work services the council's health and safety adviser had visited the complainants' property in 2007 and had prepared a note of the visit. This was within their remit of giving advice to social work services. While Mr and Mrs C disagreed with the accuracy of the note, the council had confirmed that the officer who had drafted the document had confirmed that it was an accurate record. We advised the complainants that, as this related to a note prepared a number of years ago and as the officer was no longer with the council, further enquiries by this office would not add to the information already available.

We also found it was not within the remit of the council's health and safety service to carry out an inspection of a household at a householder's request and, as a result, the council had advised the complainants that they would not carry out a visit to their property. However, we found that discussions were ongoing between Mr and Mrs C and the housing association, as their landlord in relation to the garden.

Summary

Mr C said that when he moved into his house, he was aware that affordable housing was being built on land behind it. He found out later that this was to be social housing. When building was completed, the council opened a link pathway between the two estates and Mr C said that since then he had been subject to antisocial behaviour from residents of the new estate. He considered that the path was the root of the problem, and asked the council to close it. His request was heard by the council’s leadership panel. It was initially intended that the item about his complaint should be held in private but, on the day, the panel took the decision to hold the meeting in public and he was not notified of this.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that, in deciding to recommend that the item be held in private, council officers took the view that there was a risk of potential victimisation of Mr C and of others requesting the closure of the lane. We also found, however, that the relevant legislation provides for the holding of council meetings in public, except where the council decides to exclude the public when considering an item that is likely to disclose exempt information. Decisions about whether to consider an item in public or private take place at council meetings. We accepted the view of one of the panel members that the matter was of some local interest and that it would have been inappropriate to hold it in private as it had been discussed several times at tenants' and residents’ association meetings. We also accepted the council’s explanation of why it would have been remiss of them to have encouraged attendance at a meeting where the original decision for discussion in private had been taken to protect the residents making the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council charged him a late renewal fee for his landlord registration, although he had not received email reminders that the council said were issued. The council confirmed that these were issued automatically by the Scottish Government’s online landlord registration system and that nothing had been received from Mr C’s email address saying that they were not delivered.

We were unable to prove or disprove whether the reminder emails were sent and received. However, when we investigated it was clear that it was Mr C’s responsibility to ensure that he renewed his registration in a timely manner. His previous registration in May 2008 was valid for three years. It was, therefore, due for renewal in May 2011. However, we found that he had not contacted the council for advice on the application process until March 2012. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the council dealt with a retrospective planning application for work that she had carried out in her garden. In particular, she was concerned that the council alleged that trees had been felled without authorisation, destabilising the bank. She was concerned that these comments had affected her planning application and raised public feeling against her application.

We found that the council had only noted one instance of unauthorised felling, the previous year, and had discussed this with Mrs C at the time, when she had agreed to replanting. We found that it was reasonable for them to mention this in the planning report and that information later passed to a councillor, which Mrs C had complained about, was also simply noting the landscape officer's observations. As we took the view that the council had reported the matter accurately, and as the landscape officer's observations were reasonable, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a blue badge for disability parking for a number of years but when he applied to the council in 2010 to renew it, his application was refused. Mr C said that this was despite his condition worsening. He re-applied in 2012, following surgery, and was granted a blue badge. He believed that the council did not handle his earlier application properly, and misinformed him when they said that it was successful in 2012 because of a change in legislation. Mr C also said that his GP did not have full information on which to make an assessment, and believed that there were flaws in the council's review process that resulted in his appeal being unreasonably declined.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that changes in the regulations from 1 January 2012 did clarify the health grounds on which a local authority can exercise discretion to award a blue badge, where this is not automatically awarded (if an applicant is in receipt of certain benefits). There was no evidence to suggest fault in the way the council considered Mr C’s 2010 application. Mr C’s GP had the opportunity to comment on his application and the council’s records confirmed that it was assessed in accordance with their procedures. The information that Mr C’s GP had provided was not copied to him, but it is not the council's practice to do this, and Mr C had not asked for a copy.

Mr C had suggested that an appeal process should bring the parties together to discuss the application, and this would have identified that his GP’s records were not up-to-date. However, it was evident that the review of the decision to refuse Mr C’s application was conducted in accordance with the procedures in place at the time.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the council's decision to allow their contractors to use an area of grass at the end of his street for storage of materials which related to the work they were carrying out. Mr C was dissatisfied that the site was regularly used by the council and complained that they did not consider other sites.

During our investigation the council explained why this site had been used and that other sites had been considered but had been unsuitable. The council also provided evidence that they had addressed the issue of health and safety during contacting and while the work was going on and had taken reasonable action to address any issues raised while the site was being used by the contractor. The council had also provided evidence of the action they had taken action to ensure that the site was secure. We found no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the issues raised by Mr C.

Summary

Mr C is a resident of one of nearly 1500 sheltered housing units under council management. He was unhappy with the actions of the council and their agents during a consultation process for a review of sheltered housing provision. He said that the council unreasonably: convened the original consultation meetings in a limited number of centres, to which residents had to travel by bus; failed to engage a suitably qualified company to undertake a programme of research into sheltered housing provision; failed to tell family members about the consultation and the meetings arranged by the council; failed to invite relevant local councillors to the meetings; failed to make adequate arrangements in the meetings with sheltered housing residents; ignored the views of the majority of the residents; and refused to make tape recordings of the meetings available as promised.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that: the original meetings were not for the purpose of obtaining all tenants' views, which were individually canvassed by questionnaire; the performance of the agents was essentially a contractual matter; it would have been unreasonable to have expected the council to widen the consultation to residents' families or to invite councillors. We also found that the council accepted that arrangements for meetings at individual complexes were not ideal, but that their decision had considered this and balanced it with the convenience of holding such meetings. There had been opposition to the changes from residents but this had been referred to and not ignored in the reporting of the consultation. We did not find that there had been a promise to tape meetings to play to those unable to attend.

Summary

Mr C is a council tenant. He complained about an invoice that the council sent him in respect of a repair to an outside tap. He said that the tap was damaged by the council’s contractors when doing modernisation work to his house, and he had reported the damage several times via the council’s online complaints service but they had failed to respond. The tap then fell off when his son brushed against it and he contacted the council for assistance when he could not turn the water off. As the tap had originally been damaged by the contractors, however, he considered it unreasonable that the council sent him the bill for this repair.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. During our investigation we found no evidence that he had reported the damage any earlier. We also listened to a recording of a telephone conversation, in which he reported that his son had damaged the tap and agreed to pay the bill.