Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream had wrongly assessed her property as a business and that she was billed according to this. We investigated the complaint and considered all the available information, including Business Stream's complaints file and the bills issued to Ms C. We consulted the appropriate section of the Scottish Assessors Association website (which provides information about properties and rateable values) and Business Stream's billing policy for such properties.

We found that Ms C's property was referred to as a guest house and that its rateable value had been apportioned accordingly (the business element being the greater part). In the circumstances, Business Stream's policy required them to charge appropriately, based on this information. We found that Business Stream were acting in accordance with their policy by charging Ms C, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's business moved into new premises on 1 April 2011. He was unaware of his liability to pay for water and waste water services, believing that these were included in utility payments to the landlord. During a routine audit, Business Stream identified the premises as a gap site (a site which had been receiving water without being charged for it). They set up an account for Mr C's business in September 2011 and issued a backdated bill for estimated water usage. Mr C disputed the charges and his account was reassessed. Although his water usage was reassessed and his bills reduced, he complained that he was still required to pay the higher rate for the period prior to reassessment.

We were satisfied that Business Stream followed the correct procedure for reassessing water usage as set out in guidance issued by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This procedure requires licensed providers to backdate the reassessed rate to the date of the request for reassessment, but does not allow for further backdating. We were satisfied with Business Stream's handling of Mr C's account prior to his reassessment request and found no grounds for further backdating of the reassessed rate.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the council's handling of a consultation exercise carried out as part of the statutory process to introduce priority parking in an area of the city. Mr C was dissatisfied that the council started the formal process without carrying out informal consultation. In addition, Mr C was felt it was unreasonable that the council had not explained in advance the basis on which the decision on priority parking would be made following the formal consultation exercise.

During our investigation the council explained that it would have been preferable to have carried out informal consultation. However, in this case they had decided to proceed to the formal consultation which effectively served the same purpose and would allow the views of residents to be taken into account. As we did not find that anything had gone wrong in reaching this decision, which was one they were entitled to take, we could not challenge it.

We found no evidence that the council were required to explain the basis upon which a decision would be made, in advance of the formal consultation. In this case, the council had explained why the findings of any consultation exercise could not be determined in advance. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in this case.

Summary

Mrs C was the owner-occupier of a flat underneath a council property. She regularly reported to the council that the actions of the tenant above caused her nuisance. Her reports mainly concerned her neighbour pacing the floor for prolonged periods, the constant drone of a television which was occasionally turned up to a high volume and clearly audible telephone conversations. The council visited Mrs C's property on numerous occasions and installed a noise recording system in her home for a week, but did not find evidence of antisocial noise.

Mrs C considered that the council's actions were inadequate and thought that they should install additional sound insulation between the flats. She asked us to investigate a number of points, including the level of noise required before the council take action; the council saying that the costs for potential work on other properties were a reason for not doing work on hers; the council's consideration of her human rights; and the response times to her noise complaints.

After considering the council's comments, actions and obligations, we found that the council acted reasonably in relation to all of the above points so we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the council handled a request from one of his neighbours for a disabled parking bay. Mr C complained that the council failed to follow due process in placing the disabled parking bay outside his house. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations on the matter.

During our investigation of the complaint we found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the correct process when considering the request for a disabled parking bay, as they were only obliged to consult with the applicant. We were also satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had responded to Mr C's representations on the issue of the disabled parking bay.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the condition of the road outside his home. He said there was an unreasonable delay between him making his complaint and repairs to the road being carried out. He also said he was unhappy about the council's response to his subsequent complaint about the standard of the repairs. In addition, Mr C complained that the council did not deal with his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found evidence showing that the council carried out the repairs 12 working days after Mr C complained, and ten working days after the defects were inspected. As the target repair time which the council aim to achieve is 8.5 days, we considered that carrying out the repair 1.5 days outwith the target was not unreasonable. We also obtained evidence which showed that the council inspected the repairs and determined that they were carried out appropriately. The fact that Mr C did not agree with this was not something we could look into as it is not our role to assess the standard of council repairs. As the evidence showed that the council carried out the repairs within a reasonable time and responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about the standard of the repairs, we did not uphold his complaint.

However, we were concerned that in their response, the council seemed uncertain about the target timescale for repair. Their initial response was silent on this point, they then said the target was 28 working days and finally concluded it was 8.5 working days. We were also concerned that their procedure did not appear to accurately reflect revised target timescales for urgent repairs. In addition, we were concerned that the council did not appear to have taken steps to look into Mr C's complaint that previously reported faults had not been repaired, or were not repaired properly. We accepted that the council are limited in terms of what they can do due to the passage of time, but they should have responded to Mr C on this point. We therefore, brought these matters to their attention.

On the matter of compliance with the council's complaints procedure, the evidence showed that on balance the council dealt with Mr C's complaint in accordance with procedure. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C had a number of complaints about the way the council had handled a planning application for a housing development on a site in her village. We did not uphold any of the complaints.

Ms C said that the council had failed to notify the local community council that the developer had objected to the site's green belt status during the consideration of the new local plan. She said it was unreasonable that this was only drawn to the community council's attention when the developer provided them with proposed plans around three years later. However, we found that there was no obligation on the council to provide notification to community councils about every objection made which was contrary to their position, and that in fact it would be disproportionate to expect them to do so.

Ms C also complained that the council had improperly considered roads issues, in particular that junction spacing and visibility at the entrance to the new development were not within safe standards. We found that the guidelines Ms C had referred to did not have to be adhered to rigidly, and that the roads officers who had assessed the site had properly assessed all relevant factors when reaching a decision about junction spacing and visibility.

Ms C was also concerned that the two storey housing proposed was not in keeping with surrounding houses in the area. However, we found no evidence that the proposals were unreasonable. Ms C had also complained about the calculation of housing density, based on the size of the site but again we found this to be reasonable. Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not adequately ensured that the developers adhered to the planning brief prepared by the council. However, we again found that such documents are prepared as guidance only, and do not need to be adhered to rigidly.

Summary

Mrs C raised concerns about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to her neighbour's house which was linked to her property. In particular, Mrs C maintained that the council had based their decision on incorrect information by assuming both properties had identical layouts, and had allowed the extension to extend down a shared boundary by more than four metres, which went against the council's local plan guidance note 7.

When we investigated the complaint we asked one of our planning advisers to provide advice on the way in which the council considered the application. In particular, we asked them to consider whether the evidence demonstrated that the council had complied with the local plan guidance note. After taking his advice, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered the relevant material considerations in deciding that the proposal was acceptable when assessed against the provision of the local plan guidance note 7. (A material consideration is a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest). While there had been errors in the planning report, these had no material effect on the final decision to grant planning consent. We found no evidence that there were procedural omissions in the handling of the planning application.

Summary

Ms C and her son live in a house owned by the association. After discussions about her son's anti-social behaviour, the association wrote to Ms C saying that she would be re-charged (have to pay for) for damage caused during an incident in 2007 when her son's friend forced the door open.

Because of the amount of money that Ms C owed the association, they served her with notice that they intended to take proceedings to end her tenancy. She then signed a document admitting that she owed £688.88 for repairs and agreed to repay the debt at £5 per week. Over the next three years, Ms C continued to repay the debt, making various arrangements to vary her repayments.

In May 2011, Ms C wrote to the association saying that she was unhappy with the rechargeable repair. She referred to an incident in 2008 when a door was broken, which she believed she was recharged for and which she felt was not her fault. Ms C initially said that her ex-partner had damaged the door and the association asked her to provide a police report detailing what happened. The incident number that she gave was, however, not relevant to the damage that the association had charged her for. Ms C also said that it was actually her son's friend who had kicked the door, not her ex-partner. The association continued to hold Ms C responsible for the cost of the repair.

After Ms C complained, the association's depute director and management committee considered the matter. They took the view that, because of Ms C's varying accounts of the cause of the damage, the fact that she had already had ample opportunity to dispute the charges and had made substantial payments towards the rechargeable repairs, there was no reason to refund the payments she had already paid or to cancel the outstanding balance.

When Ms C complained to us, she told us that she had challenged the charges at the time they were made and had provided crime reference numbers which she believed the association had lost. After careful consideration of the association's files and records, we found no evidence that Ms C was charged for an incident in 2008 or that she had challenged the decision to charge her for the incident in 2007 at any point before May 2011. We considered that the decision not to write off the rechargeable repair was a discretionary one (ie one the association were entitled to take) and that the association had considered Ms C's request in 2011 reasonably, taking into account the relevant factors.

Summary

Mr C said the housing association had not properly investigated his complaint that he was being harassed by his housing officer. He said that he was being harassed because he had questioned why he had been issued with a warning about anti-social behaviour.

We did not uphold his complaint. We found that the housing association had initially delayed in investigating his complaint but had held two meetings with Mr C to allow him to present any evidence in support of it. The minutes of the meetings showed that Mr C did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of harassment.