Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a school about Business Stream's handling of the school's water account. He said that there was unreasonable confusion about metering and billing and unreasonable delay in resolving this. Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to identify potential cost savings or to deal with a complaint about the issues he had raised. He was also concerned that the water meter was too large for the school's needs, and that although the meter was changed after the school applied for a downsize, the reduction in charges was not appropriately backdated.

During our investigation, Business Stream accepted that there had been confusion about billing and metering since the account was opened, that there had been an error in processing the application for a meter downsize and because of this the wrong meter had been installed. Because of these failings, we upheld this part of Mr C’s complaint. As a result of their error, Business Stream offered the school redress. Based on the evidence provided, we were satisfied that Business Stream had responded to this part of the complaint and had taken action. We found no evidence that they had not followed their policy in relation to the backdating of the reduced charges.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• issue an apology to the school for their handling of these matters; and
• as a matter of urgency, make the necessary amendments to the school's account and provide in writing a full breakdown of all charges.

Summary

Ms C complained about the Care Inspectorate's handling of an investigation into a complaint made about her nursery, which had been upheld. In particular, she said that they failed to deal with the investigation within the timescales allowed, failed to deal with the complaint in a reasonable manner and did not conduct the investigation according to their guidelines. She also said that they published their decision on their website following the investigation, although she had submitted a complaint about their handling of the complaint.

During our investigation we found that, in line with their procedures, the Inspectorate had communicated with the parent who had made the complaint about the timescale for completion of the investigation. However, they accepted that they should have told Ms C that the investigation was not going to be completed within the timescales detailed in their procedures and should have apologised for this. We were satisfied that the Inspectorate had considered and responded to Ms C's concerns about how they had dealt with the complaint about her nursery. In addition, we noted that, as a result of Ms C's concerns, they had agreed to reopen the parent's complaint for a further full investigation to allow further information to be sought, and had decided to set aside the regrading that had been applied following the complaint. However, we were concerned that there had been a delay in removing the regrading information from their website.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Care Inspectorate:

• apologise to Ms C for the delay in removing the downgrading from the website.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to respond to her complaint that council staff refused to provide receipts when she hand delivered letters to the reception desk at council offices. She told us that she had explained to the council that she did not use email and found it impractical to use registered post, but had experienced situations where council officials had denied receiving correspondence, or important documents had gone astray. She said that she had been told by council staff that the council do not provide receipts.

Our investigation found that the council do not have a policy or process for providing receipts where mail has been hand delivered, but were considering this as part of an ongoing internal review of their practices, which we considered helpful. We said we would ask the council to let us know the outcome of this. However, they were unable to explain why Ms C’s complaint about the matter was not dealt with under their complaints procedure, so we upheld that element of the complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review internal arrangements for the receipt, logging and acknowledging of complaints correspondence to provide assurance that the council fully comply with the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure;
• apologise to Ms C for the failure to deal with her complaints; and
• ensure that the issues Ms C raised in her letters of complaint are dealt with, in line with the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C is the non-resident owner of a flat in a block where the council also owned a flat. When Mr C bought his flat in 2006, he was aware that the council wanted to carry out repairs to the building. While Mr C agreed, the other private owners did not, and only an emergency repair was undertaken. When the council tenant then found dampness in their flat, the council inspected the block and, given the lack of previous consensus on the subject of repairs, issued a statutory repairs notice. The database they used for notifying owners was not, however, updated and so Mr C and another non-resident flat owner did not receive letters about this, either from the council or from their contract administrators. Mr C eventually became aware of the notice some two years after it was issued, and paid his share of the costs. More recently, however, after media reports alerted Mr C to concerns about the administration of statutory notice contracts, he complained. Mr C received a final reply from a senior official some months later.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about his requests for information about why the block of flats was selected for a statutory notice and the choice of contractor or about additional works undertaken, as we did not find that anything had gone wrong in this. We did, however, find that the council did not fully consider his complaint and review his case, as they had linked it to a similar complaint from another owner, and had not considered all the issues Mr C had raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether they should rebate the fee levied on Mr C for his share of the costs of the council’s administration of the contract.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council dealt with his complaint about their education services. He also complained that they unreasonably told him that they would no longer correspond with him by email.

Having reviewed the evidence, our investigation found that the council had responded to his complaints in line with their procedures. We noted, however, that they had given an incorrect reason for restricting his email contact, and had failed to ask him to reduce the level of email correspondence he was providing before restricting his contact with them. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for giving inaccurate reasons for restricting his email contact.

Summary

Mr C corresponded with and complained to the council about their maintenance of a park. He was dissatisfied at the end of the complaints procedure and raised his complaints with us, including that they had not responded appropriately to his complaints.

We found that there was evidence that the council had reasonably maintained the park during the period concerned. However, we also found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints because they did not provide full responses to the issues he raised, and on one occasion provided inaccurate information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the complaints handling issues identified; and
• ensure all staff are reminded of the need to provide full responses to complaints.

Summary

Mr C lives with his partner (Ms B), who has a disability. He complained about the council’s handling of the couple's request for a mutual exchange of council properties. He said the council unreasonably refused permission for this on the basis that the property that Mr C and Ms B were hoping to move into could not be fully adapted to Ms B’s potential future requirements. Mr C said the council told him that if he wished to go against their decision and proceed with the exchange he would have to sign a disclaimer saying that he accepted that the council would not be responsible for any future adaptations, and that he would have to fund these himself. Mr C said the council later changed their policy and agreed the exchange, but he also complained that they then failed to carry out a property condition check before the exchange took place.

Our investigation found that the council’s written policy on mutual exchanges at the time did not say that properties had to be fully adaptable. When we asked them for information, they explained they had based their decision on an unwritten policy about this, which they said meant that the mutual exchange could not be granted. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that it was not appropriate for the council to rely on an unapproved, unwritten policy when determining whether a mutual exchange could be granted. As there was nothing in their procedure on mutual exchanges to indicate that the exchange should not be approved, we considered that they unreasonably refused permission. It was also clear that the council’s policy did not require tenants to sign disclaimers in situations such as this. Again, it appeared that the council were operating an unwritten policy on completion of disclaimers in respect of future adaptations. We did not uphold the complaint about the property check, as the council provided us with evidence that they inspected the property before the mutual exchange.

We noted that the council had apologised for some of their failings and had taken some remedial action, but we made recommendations as we considered that further remedial action was required.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mr C and Ms B with a written apology for unreasonably refusing permission for their mutual exchange;
• feed back to the staff involved our decision about their refusal of the mutual exchange;
• revise their mutual exchange policy to include information on the adaptability of properties; and
• provide the Ombudsman with documentary evidence of the feedback previously given to staff about this complaint and the refresher training they received.

Summary

After his circumstances changed, Mr C felt that he could no longer remain in his privately rented accommodation. He was finding his situation very stressful due to mental health problems. He approached the council for assistance but he complained that the way they processed his housing application was unreasonable. He also said that they failed to follow proper processes, delayed in allowing him access to their web-based portal service and wrongly said that he had failed to obtain permission to tape a meeting. He said that the council's handling of his complaint to them about this was inadequate.

When investigating the complaint, we considered the complaints correspondence, details of Mr C's housing application, copies of the council's internal records and the council's housing allocations policy. We also contacted Mr C's community psychiatric nurse. Our investigation found that the council followed their procedures when dealing with Mr C's application and that taking his health problems into account they had, with his agreement, made arrangements for him to stay longer in his privately rented accommodation. Although Mr C was clear that he had requested the council's permission to tape a meeting he had with their officer, we found no written evidence of this. We did not uphold either of these complaints, but we did uphold the other three. There was clear evidence that the council's communication with Mr C was poor. The council acknowledged this and had apologised. There was also evidence that there was delay in allowing Mr C access to their portal helpline service, and in responding to his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their failure in this matter; and
• emphasise to helpline staff the importance of a timely reply.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of a client (Mr A) that the council acted unreasonably when they included a note on planning permission issued in response to Mr A's planning application. The note said that the building referred to in the application was not a dwelling house. Our investigation found that, in stating an opinion on a legal interpretation, the note went further than normal informative notes. Although this was a view that the council were entitled to hold, we found that it was not appropriate to communicate it in such a note, and we found that they had acted unreasonably in doing so.

Mr A's representatives subsequently discussed the note with the council. Mr C said that they were told that the note could not be removed. Mr C then wrote to the council and said that he had been instructed to raise proceedings for judicial review. The council obtained legal advice from their solicitors. After considering the legal advice, the council removed the note. However, Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to engage with Mr A's representatives properly, which meant that they had to raise proceedings for judicial review before the council agreed to remove the note. Mr C said that they had incurred costs of over £8,000 and wanted the council to reimburse them. We did not, however, uphold this complaint. We found that under the planning regulations there were remedies available to remove the note, of which Mr A's professional advisers would have been aware. They could have pursued these rather than applying for judicial review. We also considered that the council had not been given a proper opportunity to consider the matter before the judicial review proceedings were started.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr A for inappropriately including the note in the planning permission; and
• confirm to the Ombudsman that they have learned lessons from this case and will ensure that in the future, notes of this nature will not be included in planning permission.

Summary

Ms C gave up her council tenancy in August 2012. Before she left, the council's clerk of works visited and pointed out damage to several doors which he said would need replacing. He advised it would be cheaper for her to arrange the work herself, which she did. After she left the property, she was told the work was not up to standard and was issued with a bill for the work. She queried this but got no reply. The bill was issued again, some seven or eight months later. She contacted the council again and then complained that she had been charged for these items and about the delay in contacting her about the bill.

At the initial inspection of the property, Ms C had signed a declaration that she would repair the items identified, that the list was not exhaustive (ie that further repairs might be identified at the change of tenancy inspection) and that failure to undertake the repairs would result in the council carrying them out and billing her (this is known as recharging). The change of tenancy inspection that took place after she left the property identified a number of repairs, including to the work that Ms C had arranged and paid to have done. The council said that the work was not an acceptable standard and had required repair/replacement. They provided us with photographic evidence in support of this. They wrote to Ms C after the inspection setting out the rechargeable repairs, but it appeared that Ms C did not respond to this.

It is not for us to question the council's decision about whether the work was done to an acceptable standard. That is a decision that they were entitled to take and we found no evidence of administrative error in the way they reached it. Ms C had signed the declaration and the council had written to her after the final inspection with a list of rechargeable repairs, which Ms C did not appear to have questioned at that time. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint but we did make a recommendation, as we considered that the council could have made it clearer that if the work was not done to a standard they considered acceptable, they would then carry it out and issue an account for the cost. We upheld her complaint about the delay in contacting her because, in the absence of an explanation, the delay was unreasonable. However, as the council had already apologised for the distress caused, acknowledged that they could have provided her with better support and advice and reduced the bill, we decided that no further recommendations were required.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider altering the pre-termination inspection paperwork to make it clearer to tenants that failure to have the work done to a standard acceptable to the council would result in the council carrying out the work and issuing an account for the cost.