Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C complained that a council officer advised her that the electric central heating in the council house she was offered would be replaced with gas heating. She believes that she needs this as she suffers from asthma and other respiratory (breathing) health problems. She said that she was told that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority points. She also said that it was only after she accepted the property that the council explained that the heating would not be replaced.

The council told us that the housing officer told her that they might be able to change the heating system and that he would contact the property services department to find out if this was possible. As the heating system in the property was only five years old, however, it was not possible to replace it. They confirmed that, as the house had been assessed as being suitable for her needs, she was informed that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority status.

In our investigation, we considered her concerns. We confirmed that, although we could not be certain what was said by the housing officer, if she refused a property which was assessed as meeting her needs she would have lost her gold priority points. We also found that the council had reviewed information from her GP and a respiratory consultant and were satisfied that the electric heating would not have a negative impact on Mrs C's health. As Mrs C would indeed have lost her gold priority points had she not accepted this property, and as we could not establish for certain what exactly was said by the housing officer, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary
Ms C told us that she moved in to her father's local authority house in October 2010. She said that, at the time, they had immediately requested that a joint tenancy be created but that the council failed to do this.

She also complained that the council failed to adhere to an undertaking that after a six month qualifying period a joint tenancy would be created, backdated to October 2010. Ms C also alleged that after her father died in 2011 the council did not grant her an automatic right of succession to the tenancy, and did not independently review the circumstances of her complaint as they had promised.

When we investigated the complaint we considered all the documentation and relevant legislation. We did not uphold any of Ms C's complaints. We found no evidence to confirm any of Ms C's allegations. There was no evidence that she moved into the house in 2010 - in fact, information from interviews with her late father confirmed that she moved there in April 2011 at the earliest. Ms C had also said that her father sent a recorded delivery letter in November 2010 asking that a joint tenancy be created. She was, however, unable to provide confirmation of postage that would have allowed the council to track the letter. There was no evidence of a promise to backdate the tenancy.

Although Ms C provided information which, she said, confirmed the date she took occupancy of the house the council said that this conflicted with previous information. Our investigation confirmed this to be the case. The council also asked her to provide specific information to show that her father's house had been her principal home, which they said would remove any doubt, but Ms C failed to do so.

After receiving the complaint, the council asked Ms C if she would agree to an independent review by a manager from outwith her area. She agreed. The review was completed and Ms C's tenancy was recognised as being from the date after her father died.

Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of his elderly mother who is the owner occupier of a ground floor flat in a tenement stair of six flats. Four of the flats, including the two at the top, are in council ownership. Since 2006, in response to complaints from the top flat tenants about leaks, the council instructed repairs to the roof, using provisions in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Mr C complained that the council unjustifiably authorised repeat roof repairs for a repair that was not properly undertaken in the first place and failed to ensure that the repairs were undertaken properly and to a satisfactory standard. He also said that council staff were rude and unhelpful to Mr C's mother and that the council did not communicate with Mr C rather than his mother when he asked them to do so.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. As part of our investigation we reviewed the details of all the works commissioned, from which it appeared that the costs were in fact less than Mr C had claimed. There was no evidence to suggest that later work was needed because of inadequate workmanship or scrutiny. The council's database showed nearly fifty contacts with Mr C's mother since 2009 and no evidence that she had complained about rudeness or that she had given Mr C a mandate to deal with the council on her behalf.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to give him the correct information on how to appeal to the Sheriff Court. He said that this resulted in his appeal against a notice under Section 13 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 not being heard.

Mr C lived on an estate of houses constructed before legislation (introduced in the 1980s) required a developer to lodge a road security bond. The developer at the time did not apply to the roads authority to have the roads and footpaths of the estate adopted and maintained at public expense. The residents association (of which Mr C was not a member) pursued the matter of adoption with the council. Mr C informed the council that, purely based on his own financial resources, he would be unable to support the adoption of his road. A majority of residents, however, voted for the adoption.

A Section 13 notice was issued by the council under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. (A Section 13 Notice requires the owners of any land fronting or abutting a road to make up that road to the required standard.) This notice said that if the majority of households which fronted the road agreed to the road being adopted, the council would carry out the maintenance work on the residents' behalf and recover the costs.

A second letter was issued the same day advising residents of the right of appeal against the notice to the local Sheriff Court. It said that they should do so within 28 days, and that if they wished to do so or were in any doubt as to the consequences of the notice then they should consult a solicitor immediately. Mr C said that he was given misleading information in a telephone conversation with an officer of the council that his right of appeal could be made in letter form to the sheriff clerk. Mr C said that he wrote to the sheriff clerk, but did not retain a copy of the letter. The sheriff clerk did not respond and, when several months later, Mr C contacted the sheriff clerk's office he was told that they had not received his letter. The evidence we saw about Mr C's telephone conversation with the officer from the council suggested that the officer was not acquainted with this particular appeals procedure, but sourced the address of the sheriff clerk from a colleague in the council's legal services department and provided it to Mr C.

We found that the written advice in the council's letters was unequivocal and correct. It was unfortunate that Mr C understood the oral information given in his telephone conversation with the officer from the council to contradict those letters, persuading him that a letter to the sheriff clerk would suffice as a valid submission of an appeal against the Section 13 notice. On balance, and after full consideration of the matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that he was misled or that he lost his right of appeal in consequence.

Summary
Ms C complained that the council failed to take action to stop her neighbour from paving a grass service strip which formed part of the road verge. This strip lay between the homes of Ms C and her neighbour. Ms C pointed out that the title deeds to the properties in the estate prevent residents from paving these areas.

The council explained to Ms C that, from a roads authority point of view, the works carried out were of a reasonable standard and would not prevent access to services. As a result they were of the view that they had no responsibility to require the neighbour to removed the paved area and reinstate the grass. The council explained that this was a private legal matter.

In our investigation, we reviewed the roads legislation and design guidance and satisfied ourselves that the council were correct in their view and that they did not have any additional responsibility to require the neighbour to reinstate the grass. We also agreed that this was a private legal matter.

Summary
Ms C complained that the council evicted a tenant following investigations into allegations of antisocial behaviour and then some time later allowed the tenant to return to the property. Ms C said that she received no explanation from the council about why this happened.

The council told Ms C that they had not evicted their tenant but had taken action against her in connection with non-occupancy of the property. When we investigated this complaint, they explained to us that they had put in place a number of measures in an attempt to address the antisocial behaviour but that they were limited as to the information they could provide to Ms C and her neighbours.

We explained to Ms C that for reasons of confidentiality we could not provide her with all the details the council had given us. After considering the evidence, however, we were satisfied that the neighbour was not evicted and that the explanation provided by the council for the actions they had taken was appropriate.

Summary
Mr C's complaint concerned his late father's headstone in the council's cemetery. A team from the council had inspected the headstone and decided that it was unstable. The council attached a sticker to the stone to indicate that it needed repair. Mr C complained about the testing procedure and about the conditions the council sought to impose upon him in carrying out the repair work. He was dissatisfied with their response and complained to us.

Our investigation found that burial ground operators should have systems in place to control risks to visitors and other members of the public. The approach set out in the guidance involves the periodic assessment of memorials as part of a planned programme including a visual check, a hand test and more detailed inspections where required. The guidance said that appropriate precautions can then be taken to manage the risk to the public. We found that the council had in fact followed appropriate procedures.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to provide him with an appropriate valuation for a servitude right (a right that a person has to use or enjoy the property of another person) for a plot of land he sold for development. He was concerned that the council did not base their valuation for this on the price he sold the land for, rather than the valuation they obtained.

We found that the council had obtained an independent valuation for the plot of land and based the price for the deed of servitude on this value. Although the valuation obtained by the council was higher than that achieved by the sale, as the council was required to obtain best value for their assets, we found their actions were appropriate. For this reason we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council granted planning consent for a house on land next to his home. He stated that when the building began it was found that the new property had been built 1.4 metres closer to his property than had been approved. This raised concerns about overlooking from the upper windows of the new house into the lower windows of Mr C's property. To address this concern, one of two windows on the elevation facing Mr C's property was removed and a retrospective planning application was granted.

Mr C raised concerns that the overlooking of his property from the remaining window had not been reasonably acknowledged or addressed in the council's revised report to the planning committee. He complained that the report was misleading because it did not reasonably acknowledge the council's guidance about the recommended distances between windows at the relevant angles to each other. In their response, the council told him that they were satisfied the report was not misleading.

Mr C also complained that the council's responses to him were inaccurate as they said that a new property had been built further from Mr C's property than the plans approved, and that they had wrongly stated in another letter that the lane between the two properties was a public road.

We took advice from one of our planning advisers, who considered the relevant policies and guidance. This included the council's own relevant supplementary planning guidance, which gives the council and its officers a significant degree of discretion in applying these standards. The council followed the decision-making process correctly and the developer's action complied with the council's request. As the correct procedures were followed, we cannot question the merits of the revised planning decision.

Our adviser said that he did not find the report misleading and found no evidence of inaccurate dimensions (or descriptions) in it. He said the dimensions outlined in the council's letter to Mr C also appear to be correct, and that the angle of the window involved seemed to have been the subject of broad agreement between Mr C and the council. Our adviser saw no reason to believe that overall the council acted in an unreasonable manner in responding to Mr C's concerns. Although Mr C did not agree with their assessment, we found that he was not unfairly treated.

Summary
Mrs C's father (Mr A) lives in a very sheltered housing complex.

Mrs C complained on behalf of Mr A about the council's entitlement to charge him for housing support services. Mrs C disagreed with the council's interpretation of legislation in relation to their ability to charge for services not directly provided by the council and where the council had not themselves carried out an assessment.

We explained to Mrs C that it was not appropriate for us to get involved with disputes over the interpretation of legislation. Our investigation satisfied us that the council had responded appropriately to Mrs C's concerns, and that they had explained why they considered they were entitled to charge for housing support services.