Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream had treated her unreasonably, in that she had been sent a bill for her property that was far too high.

Our investigation found that Ms C's treatment had been unreasonable. The high bill could have been caused by a number of factors other than the reason given and these had not been fully investigated. In particular we found that the failure to test a water meter that was acknowledged to be faulty had deprived Ms C of a legitimate opportunity to challenge the bill. Given the size of the sum disputed and its implications for Ms C's business, we took the view that it was unreasonable for Business Stream not to have carried out further investigation. We also found that Ms C's complaint was poorly handled and subject to unnecessary delay and that there had been poor internal communication between the different departments at Business Stream.

We found that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to carry out a dye test without giving advance warning of their attendance.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide evidence to the Ombudsman that staff in customer facing roles have been appropriately advised about Scottish Water's policies regarding visits;
• review their charges with a view to charging for water consumption estimated on previous and current usage for the period in question;
• apologise in writing for the inconvenience and distress caused by their failure to handle the complaint in a timely fashion; and
• provide evidence to the Ombudsman that they have reviewed inter-departmental communication to ensure that the customer relations and collections departments share information in a timely manner so that disputed invoices are not pursued until the complaint has been resolved.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had appeared before the Parole Board for Scotland, but they did not direct that Mr C should be released. He complained to them that they had not made their decision in line with the relevant rules, as it was based solely on risk assessment reports. The Parole Board advised that they had taken a wide range of information into account in reaching the decision, and gave examples of this.

Mr C was dissatisfied and raised his complaints with us. After investigating the matter, we decided that the Parole Board had reasonably followed the rules, and did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this. We did, however, uphold his complaint about how they had handled his complaint to them, as they had not included a reasonable level of detail in order to provide a clear explanation of their decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Parole Board:

• apologise to Mr C for not responding reasonably to his complaint; and
• review their complaints handling guidelines to ensure that complaint responses include a level of detail to ensure reasonably clear explanations of their decisions are provided.

Summary

Mr C's late mother (Mrs A) was a council tenant before her death, and he complained to us about the way the council had handled a request for his mother's carer to move into the house shortly before his mother died. Although the request appeared to come from his mother, he told us that she had dementia and that the council did not establish if she had the capacity to make this decision when they allowed the carer to move in. He was also unhappy with the way the council handled the situation when, after his mother died, the carer was allowed to succeed to the tenancy.

As it was clear that the council knew that Mrs A had dementia, we were concerned that they accepted the request without making certain specific checks. We took the view that this meant they had failed to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable tenant and we upheld this part of the complaint. The council told us that it was impossible to say whether a further check would have changed the decision in this case. They apologised, however, that their procedure was not as robust as it could have been. They agreed to revise their procedures to provide guidance and ensure that in future there would be a home visit and further checks before a carer could move in. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to follow the correct procedure in handling the succession to the tenancy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the interim arrangements are now in place and that the new policy and guidance is completed and in place as soon as possible.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C have lived in their home for many years. It was separated from the next house by a small grassy amenity area. In 2005, a developer applied for planning permission for a housing development on a site behind the existing homes. Mr and Mrs C, along with many others, objected to this. In early 2006, the plans were amended to include footpath links from that development, with one such link running through the amenity area. The council refused the proposals in May 2006, but the developer appealed, and an inquiry reporter approved them, on condition that the developer entered into an agreement to contribute to the footpath links. As they thought at that point that there would be other developments in the area, and to reduce the risk to children walking to school, the council amended primary school catchment areas, in the anticipation that early completion of the housing site would provide part of the footpath link. A road construction consent (RCC) was obtained in 2008, but the recession in house building then prevented the developer from building the houses and providing the footpath link.

Faced with the agreed changes to the catchment areas from August 2012, the council's education service proposed that the council divert money from a local budget to provide the footpath link. After securing the necessary agreement from the landowners, in June 2012 the council hand-delivered a letter giving Mr and Mrs C about two weeks' notice of the start of construction of a council-funded footpath next to their home.

Our investigation did not uphold the first of Mr and Mrs C's complaints - that the council had failed to notify them of the footpath. We found that they had been aware of the housing development plans in 2005. There was no requirement to notify them of the RCC application, and the works undertaken by the council were similar to the planning consent issued on appeal and did not require further notification. We did uphold a second complaint, about the council's failure to respond to Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the shortcomings in dealing with Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C owns a house in the grounds of a former hospital. In considering an application for outline planning consent for the estate in 2000, the council considered that a design brief should be prepared for subsequent development, and this was later approved by the relevant committee. The council also decided to suspend permitted development rights in respect of proposals within the curtilage of dwellings (the land immediately around the houses).

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of subsequent applications and that they did not take enforcement action when wire fencing was erected in an area of amenity woodland immediately behind his home. He complained that the council had unreasonably delayed in dealing with planning issues since he first complained about the erection of fencing by a neighbour; inconsistently applied planning conditions and regulations to planning applications for urban fencing in a rural location: provided conflicting information about erecting fences within the woodland area; and failed to act in dealing with unauthorised fences there despite a prior commitment to take enforcement action. He also said that the council's planning service wilfully neglected to act on the findings of a recent relevant report by the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals and had made selective use in support of their failure to take action about unauthorised development.

Our investigation upheld the first, second and fourth elements of Mr C's complaint as we found evidence of delay, inconsistency and a lack of thoroughness in considering some of these issues. We did not uphold the other complaints as we did not find evidence to support Mr C's view on these.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• urgently review the terms of the original planning permissions for the estate with specific reference to all planning documents and their related planning conditions and agreements which deal with design, landscaping and woodland management; this review to include all consents, agreements and approvals issued under relevant conditions and the current status of any planning or management agreements, and to form a briefing for development management staff responsible for applications and enforcement in the area and for residents;
• reconsider their position following this exercise, with regard to the material planning background accompanying reports on applications; and
• urgently review their guidance for the preparation of officer reports on planning applications, to ensure that material considerations taken into account always include the terms of briefs, planning conditions and other forms of approved guidelines that apply to a site under any pre-existing consent or agreement.

Summary

Ms C had complained for some time about the antisocial behaviour of her neighbours, including noise and disturbances from them and their frequent visitors, and the council's antisocial behaviour team had opened two files as a result of this. More recently, Ms C had also complained about the untidy and overgrown state of their garden, and other related matters. She told us that the council had not acted on her complaints.

We did not find that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with her complaints about the neighbour's antisocial behaviour. Our investigation found that the council had followed their policy and had issued letters of caution, but that this had not progressed to more serious warnings. We did, however, uphold her second complaint, that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with repeated complaints about the garden, as we found that the housing department had not followed their procedure on estate supervision with specific regard to untidy gardens.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their deficiencies in securing a practical improvement in the condition of her neighbour's garden; and
• review the current condition of the garden to assess whether there is a need for formal intervention to ensure that it meets an acceptable standard.

Summary

Mrs C's two children were educated at home. During the academic year 2011/2012, they both attended a course at a local community high school. However, with little notice, the course was withdrawn and there was no alternative provision. Mrs C was later told that community courses were only available to adults and young people over the age of 16. She said this was contrary to her experience as one of her children was aged 14 when attending the course. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably denied her home educated children access to community courses and caused unnecessary confusion to her and her family, as their communication with her about community courses was unclear and inconsistent.

Our investigation took into account all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence and complaints file, the council's policies on education complaints and home education, and relevant sections of the Scottish Government's home education guidance. We found that while the council applied a standard policy with regard to community education, they did not have any documentation about this. It was their intention to develop guidelines to avoid confusion to staff and customers. The council also acknowledged that one of Mrs C's children had previously been allowed to attend a community course in error. The investigation further confirmed that the information given to Mrs C was unclear and confusing, particularly in the absence of a formal written policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the confusion caused by their correspondence;
• apologise to Mrs C's daughter for her disappointment in being allowed to successfully audition when she did not meet the qualifying criteria; and
• develop a set of written guidelines regarding access to community schools.

Summary

Ms C was unhappy with the heating system in the property she rented from a housing association. She complained that it was ineffective, unreliable and expensive to run. She also complained that the association had failed to carry out repairs or to deal with her complaint appropriately.

Our investigation found that the heating system was chosen by the previous tenant, and there had been difficulties with it that had taken months to resolve. We were concerned that the association had not assessed Ms C's medical information before offering her the property. We also found that although she had been told the location of the property's Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which had indicated that the efficiency of the main heating was very poor, the EPC and the potential running costs of the heating system had not been explained to her. We found no evidence that general repairs had not been carried out, or that the association had failed to investigate Ms C's concerns about dampness but we were concerned that it took some months before the heating system was repaired, especially as the problems had occurred during the winter.

We, therefore, upheld Ms C's complaints that the system was inappropriate and that the association did not carry out repairs appropriately. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to deal with Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• issue Ms C with an apology for the failings identified in the complaint;
• ensure that both a copy and a full explanation of the EPC is provided to prospective tenants before a tenancy agreement is signed; and
• ensure that when they receive a completed Health and Housing Need form from a prospective tenant that this is assessed and taken into account before a tenancy agreement is signed.

Summary

One of Mr C's children is severely disabled, and the family home was not suitable for his family's needs. He had for several years been awaiting the offer of a suitable house. When local builders submitted planning applications for part of a new housing association development, Mr C's child was twice assessed by a council occupational therapist for the adaptations that would be needed for one of the new houses to meet their specific needs. These adaptations were to be funded by the council and would be communicated in a particular design brief to the builders. Mr C was provided with a copy of the then current plans, which showed the proposed house to be detached. Mr C attended a meeting with the association in the late summer of 2010, and in response to queries he raised in email correspondence was informed that several of the points could be postponed to a subsequent detailed design stage. After planning consent was given for the development, the plans were amended without further consultation with Mr C or the council's occupational therapist. When Mr C saw the amended plans, he said that these showed a semi-detached house and that there were other significant differences in the proposals.

Mr C made two complaints - firstly that the association unreasonably altered the plans, and that this meant that the house would not meet his child's needs; and secondly that the association failed to inform him or consult with him about the amended plans. We did not uphold Mr C's first complaint as there was no unequivocal evidence that the association had instructed the amendments. When they learned that changes had been made, they had rectified matters by instructing further changes to ensure that the house, when completed, would meet Mr C's child's needs. The association agreed, however, that there had been a breakdown of communication with Mr C and so we upheld that complaint and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• liaise with relevant senior officers in the health partnership now responsible for Occupational Therapy input, to look into the issues of communication in this case to better identify the specification of needs in new build projects and to manage family expectations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment the board provided after he went to their accident and emergency department (A&E). He said that they failed to appropriately examine and assess his symptoms of severe abdominal pain with urinary and bowel problems. He also said that they inappropriately discharged him at 05:30 in the morning without considering whether he had the means or ability to return safely home. Mr C said that after seeking further medical assistance elsewhere, he was admitted to hospital the next day with an obstructed bowel and was kept in for assessment and treatment.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers. The adviser said that the assessment and examination in A&E were of a reasonable standard and that the treatment Mr C received elsewhere the next day did not indicate otherwise, so we did not uphold his complaint about care and treatment. However, the adviser was critical of the board for failing to have adequate discussions with Mr C about treatment for constipation and failing to give him laxatives to take home with him. The adviser also said that they failed to discuss practical arrangements for Mr C's discharge to ensure that he could return home safely. We upheld the complaint about discharge and made recommendations accordingly.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified;
• feed back our adviser's comments on the treatment of Mr C's constipation to the staff who examined him in A&E; and
• remind relevant nursing staff of the need to discuss and make appropriate discharge arrangements for patients in A&E and record this information in the clinical notes.
•