Resolved, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about Scottish Water's decision to refuse her compensation claim. We explained to her that our role in complaints about compensation was very limited - for example, it was not for us to decide whether compensation was payable or to determine the amount of any compensation.

On receipt of our enquiries, Scottish Water contacted us to say they felt there was scope for a financial settlement, which they would like to explore with Mrs C. Given our very limited role in such complaints, this appeared to be the best way forward, and we closed the complaint without further investigation. We advised Mrs C to return to us if she wished to pursue the complaint after Scottish Water's further consideration of the claim.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council repeatedly issued incorrect council tax notices and, when his tenant left, failed to apply exemption he was due for a property he let out. He said they did not record payments he made against his council tax liability, for which he had receipts, and that his hand-delivered letters to council offices were not passed on to the council tax department. The council continued to issue late payment charges, final demands and then summary warrants for the amounts they said he was due, despite his letters questioning the amount he owed. Mr C said the council did not respond reasonably to his communications and complaints.

During the course of our investigation the council resolved Mr C's concerns about his council tax account. They also accepted that they could have responded to his complaints earlier, in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate his complaint about a defect in the drainage pipe serving his house. He said that there was an intermittent pungent smell, and evidence of dampness. We found that the matter had been investigated by three council departments. Some repairs had been undertaken, and the council believed that they had taken reasonable steps. As no-one from the council had contacted Mr C for four months, we asked them to call back to check if the situation remained as they had left matters. The council did so, and found that there was a problem in another area under the floorboards. The council carried out repairs, and Mr C informed us that he was satisfied that the matter had been investigated properly. We closed the case on the basis that a resolution had been achieved.

Summary

Mr C was staying in homeless accommodation provided by the council. He said that, although he did not wish to leave, his place there was cancelled because he had been spending time elsewhere. The council put his belongings into storage, but did not take an inventory. He complained to us that the council acted unreasonably in not accepting arrangements he made for his belongings to be delivered to a family member, and in disposing of his belongings without compensating him for the loss.

After we discussed this with the council, they told us that they were reviewing their practices about storage, and agreed to resolve the complaint by meeting Mr C's claim for loss of his belongings. Mr C was happy with this outcome.

Summary

Miss C's property is served by a communal heating system, which failed to provide heating to her home on several occasions over a number of years. She corresponded with and complained to the housing association about this. At the end of the complaints procedure Miss C complained to us.

While we were considering Miss C’s complaints, she accepted a full and final settlement from the association in relation to this. We decided that because she had accepted the settlement, there was no practical outcome that we could achieve, and that we would not consider this further.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not investigated his complaint that four packets of tobacco were stolen from his cell. We contacted the SPS for further information about this. In their response, they said that Mr C had never submitted a claim to be reimbursed for the tobacco. They agreed to send him a copy of the claim form along with information about how to submit a claim.

Mr C told us that he would do this, and that if the SPS agreed to reimburse him for the four packets of tobacco, this would resolve his complaint. Mr C also said that as the SPS were going to consider reimbursing him, he was happy for us to close his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the road outside his property was flooding in moderate to heavy rainfall, and that this was affecting his property. He said that the council were failing to keep the road drains free of debris in his area.

When we made enquiries to the council about this, we found that they had taken appropriate action to address the problem, and we were satisfied that the complaint had been resolved.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action after she complained about antisocial behaviour by neighbours.

During our investigation, the council told us that the neighbours had moved out. As we were by that point satisfied that the council had shown us that they had taken Miss C's complaints seriously, and had liaised with other agencies, including the police, to investigate the matter, we decided that no further action on our part was needed.

Summary

Mr C owns a business that operates from premises that were formerly used a launderette. He said that he would have preferred a smaller meter, to reflect that his business would use less water than the previous one, but had been told that it would not be replaced. Mr C then complained to Business Stream when charges doubled because of an inexplicable spike in consumption. He complained to us because Business Stream would not accept that this was due to a fault in the meter, rather than to a problem on his premises which he had engaged a plumber to fix. They had also declined his request to replace the meter without charge.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had replaced the meter seven years before, and that it was the smallest meter that could be installed. Business Stream had sent out a field officer to investigate, and had advised Mr C to have the problem fixed, but they had no record that he had contacted them to confirm the work had been carried out and to ask for a leak allowance. We noted that they had given him advice about applying for a leak allowance, but we found that this advice could have been clearer, or Mr C could have been signposted to Business Stream's website. We asked Business Stream to ensure that this was done.

During the investigation, Mr C said that consumption had returned to normal, which suggested that there was no need to renew the meter. However, there remained a period when he was being charged for more than his business would normally use. After we contacted Business Stream, they reviewed the case and offered as a goodwill gesture to reduce the charge for the period when the spike was shown, to reflect normal usage. As Mr C was content with this, the complaint was resolved.

Summary

Mr and Ms C were unhappy with the council's handling of their complaints. After we contacted the council about this, the council decided that Mr and Ms C's complaints should be upheld and the second stage of their complaints process repeated. As Mr and Ms C were satisfied with this outcome, we did not take the matter further.