Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C contacted us on behalf of his wife and her business partner, who lease commercial premises. He complained that Business Stream were charging them for water which was being supplied to the adjoining commercial premises. Mr C was unhappy because Business Stream had told him that this was a private matter between him and the landlord of both premises.

We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation confirmed that there was only one meter serving both premises, which was located in the premises leased by Mr C's wife and her business partner. The landlord had not requested a separate meter to serve the adjoining commercial premises, and there was no responsibility on the part of Business Stream to tell Mr C about the arrangement. We agreed that the matter was one to be resolved with the landlord.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a charitable foundation that Business Stream refused their request for relief from water charges. He said that Business Stream failed to follow its own guidance concerning eligibility. Mr C said that as the previous charity that occupied the premises were exempt, so too should the foundation he represented.

Our investigation considered all the information provided by the foundation and Business Stream. We also considered relevant guidance and policies relating to the exemption scheme. One of the criteria for exemption was that the claimant required to have been exempt from charges for the property they occupied as at 31 March 1999. As Mr C was unable to provide information to confirm that the foundation met this criteria, we found that Business Stream had properly applied their policy and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C owns a flat in a block of four. One of the other flats is also privately owned and the council own the remaining two. Mrs C complained about a number of issues relating to property maintenance and repairs. These included that: the council did not provide her with information about their responsibility for undertaking work; there was damage to her property and the council failed or delayed in fixing this; and the council failed to carry out repairs that she had reported to them. Mrs C also complained about the attitude of council staff, both towards her and to the handling of her complaints.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. When we investigated, the council told us that they had no agreement with Mrs C about repairs. They explained their usual practice when common repairs are reported to them or when improvements are undertaken in a property which is both tenanted and occupied by owners. They said that an owner could arrange for works to be done and to submit a quote to the council for consideration of reimbursement of the costs, as Mrs C had done in the past. They also provided us with evidence that they had either undertaken repairs in common areas or that these were in hand for a future maintenance programme.

We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint about council staff, because it was clear that she had not pursued this at the time as a formal complaint. Neither the staff recollection of events nor the record of Mrs C’s contact with them suggested grounds for a complaint. We also found no evidence to suggest that the council failed to respond to Mrs C’s complaints. We did find that they could have explained more clearly that their investigation did not look at new matters that she had raised that were not part of her formal complaint to them. However, we were satisfied that the council investigated the issues that Mrs C raised in her formal complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when his home was built in 1998 the council issued a completion certificate. This is a document that must be verified by the planning authority. It certifies that the work is complete and in accordance with the building warrant and relevant building regulations. He said that the council did not take reasonable steps to check that the building complied with the conditions on which the building warrant was granted. Mr C was also unhappy at the way the council handled his complaint when he raised the matter with them at the end of 2010.

Mr C had contacted the council in 2001 when he became aware that there were faults in relation to the windows and that water was coming into the property. He said that the council were unhelpful and did not identify any problems at the time. Mr C also took this up with the builder and the National House-Building Council (NHBC - a housebuilding standards company) and most of the faults were fixed.

We found that the problems that had evolved over time at Mr C's property appeared to be mainly workmanship issues that he appropriately took up with the builder and NHBC. We found no evidence to support his view that the council had inappropriately issued the completion certificate.

We also found that the council had acknowledged and responded to several emails Mr C had sent in relation to his complaint. We found that they responded to his complaint within a reasonable length of time, but reminded the council of the need to keep complainants up to date on progress and to give details of when they could expect a full response to the issues raised.

Summary

Mr C owns a holiday home, and there are two other holiday homes close by. The drainage systems for these premises empty into a Buchan trap (a device in a domestic sewer pipe to prevent vermin entering the pipe) inside Mr C's garden. If this becomes blocked, sewage floods into Mr C's garden. This happened in February 2007 and July 2011. Mr C complained that when the other properties were renovated, the council issued a building warrant (the legal permission to commence building work) failing to take into account his concerns about the drainage system. He also said that when he reported incidents to the council, they did not take action. He believed the drainage system should never have been approved and in view of his problems, the council should require his neighbour to change their system.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The council confirmed that when the neighbouring houses were renovated they assessed and tested the drainage systems as part of the building warrant process, and found them to be satisfactory. They were, therefore, obliged to grant the warrant. The problem with the drains appeared to be not their design, but misuse by tenants of the holiday homes, which caused blockages. The council had also said they would look into any incidents that Mr C brought to their attention, and we found evidence that they did this. However, their records showed that most recently Mr C had said that he preferred to resolve matters amicably with his neighbour. Taking this into account, the council agreed not to take any action, and Mr C had not contacted them since.

Finally, Mr C said he thought the council should have made his neighbour change the drains. We found evidence that the neighbour had said they would do so if there were problems, and that their solicitor had also offered this but Mr C and his wife had refused access. In the circumstances, the council took the view that as no nuisance had been established, it was not for them to contact the neighbour on his behalf. We considered this appropriate.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the council decided to install electric dry panel heaters in his property when his heating system failed. In particular, he was dissatisfied that he was not given the opportunity to refuse this heating system, as he said that other types of heating were available. He also complained that he was given inaccurate information about the running costs for the new system.

Our investigation found that, while the council accepted that it was good practice to consult, when Mr C's heating system failed they found that there were no other viable options, so they had not discussed the matter with him. We also found no evidence that the council had provided inaccurate information to Mr C.

Summary

In the early 1990's Mr and Mrs C converted rural steading buildings to provide two houses. These are across the road from the original farmhouse, which Mr and Mrs C also own. The land surrounding all three buildings is the property of a company, which employs agents to manage the land for them. The local plan for the area originally said that for planning purposes there should be a presumption against further development except for agricultural or family purposes, but planning policy later changed, as did the council's planning guidance.

In 2009, the company decided that they wanted to build houses on the land. After correspondence about what this might involve, pre-planning discussions and consultations, the managing agents withdrew an initial planning application. They applied instead for permission to build two single houses, one beside the steading and one beside the farmhouse. Council planning officers approved the application to build beside the steading, but refused the second application. It was, however, later approved with conditions, because the local planning review board overturned the officers' decision, despite objections from Mr and Mrs C and others.

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council failed to take local planning policies appropriately into account; adopted an inconsistent approach to the applications; kept inadequate records; and made misleading or inaccurate statements. We did not uphold any of their complaints, however, as our investigation did not find evidence that anything had gone wrong in taking these decisions. The planning policy background was complex, but we found that the council had taken all appropriate matters into consideration when amending their planning guidance and that planning officers were entitled to discuss the matters with the agents, and acted consistently when doing so. We also found that the complaint about inadequate records related to a temporary difference between the paper file and electronic information, and the allegation of misleading or inaccurate statements centred on a difference of view between Mr and Mrs C and the council about how to describe the number of houses on their property.

Summary

Mr C submitted an application to erect a wind turbine. After he submitted the application, an airport objected on the basis that the wind turbine would create clutter on their radar displays. Mr C complained that the council did not give him reasonable advice before he submitted the application. He said that the airport told him that the council had a map of the areas where the airport would object to development. He said that the council had not told him of the likelihood of the application being rejected on this basis. He asked that the council refund his application fee.

Our investigation found that Mr C had not requested pre-application advice before submitting his application. There was no evidence that he had discussed the application with a planning officer. Although he had discussed the application with an administration assistant at the council before it was accepted as valid, this was about some further information that was required. We also found that the map used by the council was to assess whether a particular airport or similar body should be consulted about a planning application. The map should not be used to assess or pre-empt what any response to such a consultation might be.

We found that the council had acted reasonably in this case. We did not uphold the complaint and did not recommend that the council refund Mr C’s application fee.

Summary

Mr C complained that the condition of the footpath beside his home meant that he had difficulty in accessing his driveway. After he contacted the council about this, he had spoken to two workers marking up the damaged areas on the footpath. They suggested that he could expect it to be fixed within three weeks. When this did not happen he complained.

The council accepted that the footpath was sub-standard but explained that, for budgetary reasons, they had to prioritise more significant repairs. As the condition of the footpath was not poor enough to cause any safety risk, and they were satisfied that Mr C could access his home from the public road, they could not in fact give him a time-frame in which the repairs would be carried out. Mr C also complained about his telephone conversation with a council employee who terminated the call.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council complied with their responsibilities in terms of roads maintenance. We considered it reasonable for them to prioritise repairs, which was a decision they were entitled to take. On the matter of the telephone call, as we did not have evidence to conclude that the call was handled inappropriately, we could not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C moved into a house in a rural location. One plot in a development next to his home was not developed at the time, and was the subject of two planning consents in 2006 for a change in house type. In early 2011 another application was made, this time to build a two storey house. The applicant described this as a modification of one of the 2006 consents, and the council described it this way when notifying neighbours of the application.

Mr C complained that the information provided by the council, which said that the application was for the modification of a previous planning consent granted in May 2006, was incorrect; that the council’s response to his complaint contained inaccurate information; and that there had been a fault in the timing of advice given to the convener of the committee which determined the 2011 application.

We took advice from our planning adviser. The adviser said that the description of the proposal was chosen by the applicant. He said that 'modification of a previous consent' no longer existed and officers had corrected the description to 'an application for full planning consent'. Due to the nature of the minute taking, we could not use the information in them to decide if there was inaccurate information, but we noted that there did not appear to be any evidence that Mr C was disadvantaged as a result of this. The third issue had arisen as a result of decisions on how minutes should be taken and was not specific to the complaint.