Resolved, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association failed to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe.

Ms C was required to move to allow the repairs to be actioned, but did not believe that the association were following their decant policy correctly as she was on the waiting list for a bigger property, but they were going to decant her to one the same size as her current home.

The main outcome she was seeking was to be moved to a new property, which she was aware was about to be let. We agreed to investigate Ms C's complaints and notified the association. Their reply included confirmation that Ms C had bid for the property she wanted to move to and had been successful, with a move in date having been set. We attempted to contact Ms C to confirm if this fully resolved her complaint, but could not make contact with her despite several attempts by phone. We contacted her by email with a deadline for response. As we did not hear back from Ms C, we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint that Anglian Water Business unfairly made him pay a standing charge for a fourth Supply Point ID at his business premises, which was not in use. Following our initial investigation, the water provider suggested writing-off the remaining balance on the account in recognition of an ongoing charitable exemption on the account and the delays in responding to Mr C's complaint. As this was an acceptable resolution, we closed our investigation as being resolved, with no finding on the agreed complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A had made enquiries about undertaking kinship care of a relative. She heard nothing further until this was followed up on her behalf by Mrs C more than two years later. Mrs C complained that the partnership had not fulfilled their duty to provide Ms A with information, advice and financial assistance to help her apply for a kinship care order.

During our investigation of the complaint, the partnership offered to backdate kinship care allowance payments to the date of the first record of the social work department being aware of Ms A's interest in undertaking kinship care for her relative. This action resolved the complaint, and we closed our case.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A), who required personal care in her home, that the council had unreasonably charged Mrs A for personal care. Following discussions with us, the council accepted that personal care for individuals over the age of 65 years was a non-chargeable service and they should not have charged Mrs A for providing her with this service. They agreed to reimburse the full free personal care contribution claimed by Mrs A. The council also apologised for the time it had taken to resolve this matter and said that a change to their charging policy would now be applied to other persons who were subject to financial assessment for non-chargeable personal care before the charging policy was revised. As this was a satisfactory outcome for Mr C, we closed the case.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the partnership had refused to backdate her kinship care allowance payments for a child she looked after. Mrs C had been awarded the allowance and wanted this to be paid from the date the allowance had first been introduced, as she had previously obtained a court order for the child. The partnership said that they had not been aware of the court order and awarded payments from the date Mrs C had contacted them.

In response to our enquiries on the complaint, the partnership said that they had reconsidered the matter and had decided to backdate the payments. Mrs C agreed that this had resolved her complaint. We closed our case.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream. Mr C operated a mobile snack van which was located on a car park in a business park. He did not believe he should be liable for water charges as he was not connected to the main water and sewer supply. However, despite Business Stream making requests to Scottish Water for the premises to be de-registered, the premises was deemed eligible as water ran from the roof onto the car park and down the drain.

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably billed him for water charges. We requested all of the relevant information from Business Stream. We sought their views on Mr C's liability and they requested that the case be passed back to them again to make a further de-registration request to Scottish Water. We allowed them to do this but the de-registration request was refused. Business Stream then took the decision to remove all charges on the account given the length of time the issue had been going on and the fact tht Mr C was no longer trading from the premises. They also apologised to Mr C for the inconvenience caused. As the removal of charges and an apology were the outcomes Mr C was seeking from his complaint, we closed his case.

Summary

Ms C complained about her liability for water charges, as well as the manner in which she was billed for them by Business Stream. We contacted Business Stream to request information regarding the complaint. They responded by asking to re-open a dialogue with Ms C to attempt to bring the case to a satisfactory conclusion. Ms C listed various matters which she wished to be addressed and the organisation agreed to all of her requests. Ms C was satisfied with this outcome and we therefore closed her complaint without further investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of roads consent on the housing estate he lived in. He told us that the roads were still not fully complete, despite the three year roads consent period having expired a number of years ago.

Under roads consent legislation, roads authorities (in this case the council) are supposed to secure a bond or deposit from any developer seeking to construct a road when issuing consent. The developer then has a three year period to complete the road before the consent expires. Come the expiry date, councils are either supposed to formally extend the consent or, if the consent expires, use the security bond or deposit to complete the works.

In response to our enquiries, the council confirmed that the works in question were now complete, but accepted a number of failings in this case. They explained that they had not ensured that security bonds or deposits were received for all the roads in the estate before issuing consent. While they took steps to pursue the developer for the missing bonds, by the time they sought to take formal action in this respect, some houses were completed and occupied. This meant that they were unable to close or divert the roads, which would be their normal recourse in this situation. They also failed to ensure that the consent was formally extended. Normally this would have meant that they would be responsible for completing the works. However, this was complicated by the failure to secure the necessary bonds or deposits and also by a planning condition, which specified that the permanent road surface was not to be completed until all building works were complete. This only took place within the last few months, at which point the council took steps to ensure the roads were completed as soon as practicable.

The council explained that they had implemented a number of procedural changes to ensure that similar mistakes were not repeated in future. This included:

ensuring that security bonds are received from developers before house building commences

ensuring that roads are stopped up before occupation if necessary

implementing regular expiration date checks to ensure consent does not lapse unnecessarily.

We were satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to Mr C's complaint and he agreed. We did not take our investigation any further.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about backdated charges regarding water rates at a business unit he rented. Mr C used this unit for storage only and did not think he should be charged water rates. The water supply was temporarily capped and Mr C was under the impression this meant he would not longer have any charges, but Business Stream advised this was not the case and subsequently billed him. Mr C was also unhappy that his bill was passed to a recovery agency while his complaint was on-going. He also complained that it took nine months for Business Stream to respond at stage two of his complaint.

We began an investigation into Mr C's complaint, but were contacted by Business Stream who had reviewed their paperwork. They were of the view that the charges asked of Mr C were still correct but they did acknowledge failings in their complaints handling and gaps in the information they held on file. They therefore proposed to refund Mr C 50 percent of the bill he had paid. Mr C was satisfied with this outcome and the complaint was closed without further investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably charged his company, which owns a rail station, for property and roads drainage water charges. He also complained that there should not have been any return to sewer charges from a water meter that serviced locomotives belonging to the company.

The issue of the return to sewer water charge was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties when Business Stream, based on calculations provided by Mr C, backdated a zero percent return to sewer allowance for the company.

After investigations by Business Stream, who provided information about the liability for the property and roads drainage charges, it was agreed by Mr C that there was some drainage of waste and surface water from the property into the public sewerage system. As such, a resolution was achieved in establishing that his company did in fact have liability for these charges.

No decisions or recommendations were made as this case was resolved after action was taken by Business Stream following our involvement.