Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C, the secretary of a bowling club, complained that it was unreasonable that Business Stream did not read the club's meter for sixteen months. The bills during that period had been based on estimates. After the meter was read, the club received a bill for £1,978.21, which was far in excess of any previous bills.

Our investigation found that Business Stream are required to submit two actual meter readings each year, one of which may be supplied by the customer. We asked them to explain why the meter was not read during the sixteen-month period. In their response, they said that there was a note on their computer system showing that the meter reader was unable to gain entry to the club grounds to take a meter reading on one occasion. However, there were no other notes on the computer system to explain why there was such a gap in reading the meter, so we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also disputed that Business Stream had taken actual meter readings for the large bill, and considered that it was based on estimates. He said that the club had traced the area in which the meter was housed, and they had to clear foliage and debris to access it. He said that this confirmed that no access had been made for some time. However, the club had subsequently provided a meter reading that was higher than those that Business Stream had taken. Business Stream also sent us photos of their readings. Although these did not show the serial number of the meter, we were satisfied that the bill was based on actual rather than estimated readings.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the delays in responding to his complaints;
• consider awarding him a compensation payment in line with their service standards for the delays in responding to his complaints; and
• consider issuing a reminder to meter readers that, where possible, they should include the serial number of a meter in photos.

Summary

Mr C owns a house which is reached by a lane. The properties on the lane were built before the present council came into existence in 1996. At that time, in readiness for the reorganisation of local government, the former roads authority had sent the council a computer list of public roads, on which the lane was identified as one. Mr C did not know about this when he bought his property in 1997, and does not have a property enquiry certificate (a document produced by a council with information about the status of a property) from the time of his purchase. In 1998 a neighbour (neighbour D) bought a property there. His property enquiry certificate suggested that the lane was a public road, as did a plan he was later sent. In 2011, however, Mr C found out that the council considered that the lane was not a public road, and was unhappy about this.

In response to the complaint, the council said that, by 2004, they had realised that the property enquiry certificate issued to neighbour D was wrong, and had told him and apologised. (This meant that the council considered that the lane was in fact private and that the home-owners had the responsibility of maintaining it.) There was, however, a scheme under which owners could apply to pay half the cost (with the council paying the other half) of bringing a road up to the standard where the council would adopt it (take responsibility for it). This had been raised with the council before, but nothing had come of it. In 2011, Mr C made another enquiry about this, and was given costs but then learned that the council had no money for this in their budget. When Mr C was speaking to other residents about the project, neighbour D had provided a copy of his original 1998 property enquiry certificate. After seeing this, and knowing that the council had been maintaining the road verges etc, Mr C was unhappy with the council’'s insistence that the lane was private. He pursued this with the council, through solicitors and through a councillor and a Member of the Scottish Parliament.

When he brought the matter to us, we explained that where there is a dispute about status, it is not our role to make a definitive ruling. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints that the council failed to inform him of potential funding options or that they had unreasonably claimed that the lane’s inclusion in the council’'s list of adopted roads was in error. We noted their reasons in support of their stance on this. We did, however, uphold Mr C’s complaint that the council failed to follow the correct process to remove the lane from their list of adopted roads. This was because we found there was a lack of transparency about how this happened, and we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• further consider the status of the list passed to them on 27 February 1996 and take such action to regularise the matter as they deem appropriate.

Summary

Ms C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of a repair under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Ms C questioned whether the original repair to the roof had ever been done and, even if it had, the standard of the workmanship. This was because no one remembered the work having been done; the chronology of the notices and repair did not correspond; and another repair was required soon after. The council acknowledged administrative errors in their handling of the repair, but maintained that the work was carried out in 2010. They also felt that the time that had since passed made it impossible to confirm whether the latest repair was related in any way to the 2010 repair.

The fact that the work was carried out under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 meant that we could not look at the first two aspects of Ms C’s complaint, as these were outwith our jurisdiction. However, we investigated the third aspect, about how they handled Ms C's complaint. The council acknowledged to us that they had not met their own timescales in doing so. They explained that they had reviewed their processes and had given feedback to the relevant members of staff. They had also recently adopted the model council complaints handling procedure recommended by our Complaints Standards Authority. However, we also found evidence that a council employee had told Ms C that the council would conduct the later repair at its own expense. This contradicted the council’s final response which said that they would only pay their individual share (as a part-owner of the building), so we asked the council for more information about this. In the light of the evidence received, we found there had been maladministration. We upheld this aspect of Ms C’s complaint and made a relevant recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether it would be appropriate to reimburse the residents for their respective shares of the repair conducted in 2010.
• 

Summary

Ms C, a mature student, started a postgraduate degree. She had been living on her own in a two bedroom private let and had previously received 25 percent single person’s council tax discount. When she started studying, she applied for, and was granted, exemption from council tax during her studies. In November 2010, with the written consent of her landlord she sublet the extra bedroom to a lodger. The lodger was not a student but applied for, and was granted, housing benefit which continued until August 2011. Ms C did not ask the council about how having a lodger might affect her student exemption. In July 2011 after completing her second year of studies, Ms C herself applied for housing benefit, and it was then held that she as tenant was responsible for full council tax (less 25 percent single person’s discount) dating back to when her lodger arrived. By the time that the council had calculated this and told Ms C about it, however, her lodger had left. Ms C also moved out in November 2011 but the council then pursued her for substantial arrears of council tax for 2010/11 and 2011/12 and for an amount of overpaid housing benefit.

When Ms C pursued this with the council before submitting a complaint, they told her that they had issued a demand for the council tax in January 2011. They could not, however, provide a copy of the relevant demand or covering explanatory letter. Ms C made two complaints about the council: that they unreasonably failed to remove a student exemption from her council tax and notify her at the time of the revised council tax charge; and that they did not make it clear to her that subletting a room in her flat would affect her claim for housing benefit.

Although it is generally a claimant's responsibility to tell the council about potentially relevant changes, we considered that the council’s delay in notification meant that Ms C could not realistically pursue her lodger for the amount due. We upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to put this right. We did not uphold the second complaint, as it was clear that Ms C’s claim for housing benefit was made some seven months after her lodger’s housing benefit claim.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their omission in not removing her student exemption earlier and in informing her of this; and
• credit Ms C's council tax accounts for 2010/11 and 2011/12 with an ex gratia sum of half the council tax liability incurred during the period of her lodger's occupation of the flat.

Summary

In June 2011, Mr and Mrs C submitted a planning application to build a house in their garden. They complained that planning permission was refused although at the pre-advice stage, the council did not identify any concerns. Mr and Mrs C also said that an application in principle had been made in accordance with council officers' advice. After refusal, Mr and Mrs C asked for the decision to be reviewed but this was also refused. They complained, in general, about the way in which the council dealt with their applications.

During our investigation we obtained independent planning advice from one of our planning advisers, and considered the complaints and planning files. We upheld three of Mr and Mrs C's six complaints. Our investigation found that, throughout the process, Mr and Mrs C had the benefit of planning advice as they had engaged their own planning consultant to assist them with their application. Notwithstanding the advice they said they were given by the council, it was clear that the only way to determine an application was to submit it. Our investigation showed that there was no evidence to suggest that they had been encouraged to submit an application in principle. However, when the application came for validation, our planning adviser said that the council failed to deal with it in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. They also uploaded irrelevant information onto their planning website. However, at the review stage the council followed government guidance. When Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the outcome and complained, we found the council failed to respond to their concerns in a reasonable manner.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• formally apologise for their error in validating the application;
• reimburse fifty percent of costs as it appears doubtful, given that they did not require design details, that they would have gone on to require drainage information;
• apologise for their error; and
• formally apologise for their shortcomings in the way they handled the complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended a community consultation session about a town centre regeneration plan. He later complained that a council officer did not include his comments in a summary document. Mr C also questioned the motives behind the officer's decision not to include his comments. After complaining to the council, he approached us with his concerns about the length of time they took to respond to his complaint, the fact that they referred to his role as a newly elected member of the council and because in their final response they did not give him details of his right to bring his complaint to us. The council had explained to Mr C that the officer felt that the comments did not contribute to the consultation, either in a positive or negative way, and that this was why they were not included. Mr C pointed out that the council had included other comments which could also not be considered to contribute in any way to the exercise.

Our investigation reviewed the supporting documentation, and found no evidence to suggest that the council's decision not to include the comments was unreasonable. However, we did agree with Mr C that other comments which were included in the summary document could not be said to have contributed to the consultation and we noted that this could lead to a perception of bias. However, Mr C did not suffer any injustice in terms of having his views heard as his comments, in full, were presented to the planning committee, and he had further opportunities to comment before the planning application was considered. We did not, therefore, uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We did uphold his complaint about the time the council took to respond to his complaint, and their failure to provide referral rights to us. We noted, however, that the council were correct to point out that a change of status to councillor would change the relationship with the council and its officers, and would have an impact on how they examine a complaint such as this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in responding to his complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C’s twin children attended a local primary school but were placed in separate classes. Mr and Mrs C considered that one of their children had been subjected to bullying by classmates over an extended period since late 2011. Unhappy about the way the head teacher of the school had handled the matter, they asked the council’s education service to intervene, and in early 2012 a council quality improvement officer chaired a meeting in the school. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs C reported various other incidents in the summer term and, dissatisfied with the education service’s handling of the matter, they complained to the service.

Mr and Mrs C made six complaints to us. We did not uphold two of these: that the education service unreasonably failed to follow disciplinary procedures to prevent the bullying of their child or that the education service unreasonably failed to implement agreed support measures to assist their child. We upheld the remaining four complaints, one of which was that the school unreasonably failed to return a phone call when Mr and Mrs C had taken the step of withdrawing their child from school. The other three complaints related to complaints handling and the sharing of information about the education service’s investigation and notes of two meetings Mr and Mrs C attended with officers during the investigation process.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the deficiencies in the handling of their complaints identified in our investigation.

Summary

Mrs C's elderly uncle (Mr A) had been a tenant of a housing association for many years. His home is factored by a subsidiary company (the company) of the association. When that association then transferred a large quantity of housing stock to another housing association (the new association) non-common repairs (ie most internal repairs) became the responsibility of the new association. However, common repairs to external stairs and paths remained the responsibility of the company.

Mrs C complained about the poor condition of the external stairs leading to the building where Mr A lives and that they were a safety hazard. Mrs C also complained that it took over a year for outdoor handrails to be fitted, and for Mr A’s kitchen drawers to be repaired. She was also unhappy that the new association did not clearly explain their repairs policy nor advise her for over a year that the factoring of Mr A’s home remained the responsibility of the company.

We upheld three of Mrs C's four complaints. Our investigation found that the new association had been planning a joint programme of improvement works with the company in relation to the stairs. We also found that the new association did not know, at the time of Mrs C’s complaint, that the company factored Mr A’s building and so were responsible for installing the handrails. As a result of this, there was a long delay in the matter being referred to the company. We found that the records of the internal repair were misleading in that they showed that it was complete when in actual fact it remained outstanding for over a year. In addition, although the new association had been undergoing a period of change in terms of their housing stock, they should have identified that the company were the factors for Mr A’s building. We made three recommendations because of these failings. However, we took the view that the new association had made reasonable attempts to respond to Mrs C’s questions about their repairs criteria and to explain that repairs to the stairs would form part of a wider plan involving those residents across the estate who owned their homes.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review how the initial repair request for the drawer was handled, with a view to ensuring clear records are made and outstanding repair work is not recorded as complete without good reason;
• make a time and trouble payment to Mr A; and
• apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for all the failings identified in our report.

Summary

Mr C’s son (Mr A) had died, leaving a widow and young family. Mr A and his widow were tenants of the housing association. After Mr A died, Mr C handled matters, including contacting the association within days of his son's death. Mr C complained that the rental direct debit was taken for the following two months, despite Mr C having been assured that it had been cancelled. In addition, representatives of the association visited the property with paperwork that was still in joint names, inappropriate rent reminder letters were sent and correspondence continued to be issued in joint names. This was already a very difficult time for Mr C and his family and he told us that this added unnecessarily to their upset and distress. Mr C complained that the association, on being told of his son’s death, did not internally communicate this appropriately to staff. He also felt that they should have had a specific policy in place to handle such matters.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint that the association's internal communication had failed. The association had explained that the local housing officer who would normally have handled such matters had left her post suddenly. We noted that Mr C had taken this into account and had contacted the housing association directly, rather than trying to do so through that officer. We noted that the association had apologised for and explained their mistakes, and had offered some redress to Mr A's widow. Having considered all the evidence and taken account of the fact that the retired officer was soon to be replaced, we did not uphold his complaint that they should have a specific policy in place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• confirm that a replacement housing officer is in place; and
• confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that bereavements are communicated more effectively.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care given to his wife (Mrs C) in an accident and emergency department on two occasions, and said that she was displaying clear symptoms of stroke on both. He also complained that Mrs C was discharged from hospital on her second visit, even though she was unable to speak without slurring. He told us he pointed this out to the doctors, but was ignored. Mrs C's GP referred her urgently to the hospital the following day, where she was found to have suffered a stroke.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers. Our investigation found that on the first occasion Mrs C was diagnosed as suffering from migraine (an extreme type of headache which can cause disturbances to speech and vision). We found that it was reasonable to attribute Mrs C's symptoms on this occasion to migraine, but that her case should have been discussed with the on-call neurologist (a specialist in diseases of the nerves and the nervous system) and a management plan agreed. We, therefore, upheld the complaint that her treatment and diagnosis was not reasonable and made a recommendation referring to the relevant guidelines from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

We also found that on her second visit to hospital, it was unreasonable for Mrs C to have been diagnosed as suffering from migraine. There was no record of either a FAST (Face, Arm, Speech, Time of Event) assessment, or of a ROSIER (Record of Stroke in Emergency Room) review. Our adviser said that had either of these been carried out, then the result would have been positive. There was no record of discussion between emergency department doctors about Mrs C's unusual symptoms, and her case should have been discussed with a neurologist or stroke physician and a CT scan (a type of scan using x-rays to create a detailed picture of the inside of the human body), should have been requested. The board had not recognised this failing in their response to Mr C’s complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's third complaint as our investigation did not find evidence that doctors had ignored reported symptoms of slurred speech. The notes provided clearly detailed the symptoms and signs that Mrs C had when she was assessed at the hospital.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified in Mrs C's care;
• review the processes governing referral to the on-call neurology team when a patient presents with symptoms consistent with hemiplegic migraine, to ensure an appropriate management plan is agreed and documented, with reference to the SIGN guidance; and
• provide evidence that they have reviewed the procedures within the accident and emergency department for the identification of stroke and the appropriate point for involving a stroke physician in light of the failings identified in this complaint.
•