Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a request he made for a burst allowance (an allowance made against sewerage charges when water is lost because of a burst pipe) following an increase in his water bill due to a leak. Mr C explained that the leak was outside his property boundary, on a pipe that both he and his neighbour believed had been disconnected many years ago when the property was separated.

Business Stream refused Mr C's request, stating that, to be eligible for a burst allowance from Scottish Water, a customer must have a waste water connection, which Mr C's property did not.

On investigation, we confirmed with Scottish Water that this was not correct. Scottish Water confirmed that burst allowances could be granted to reduce supply charges, regardless of whether a customer had a waste water connection. We found that Business Stream had failed to recognise this error despite many opportunities to do so in response to both Mr C and our enquiries.

We also found that, as they did not consider the request would be successful, Business Stream chose not to submit it to Scottish Water for their consideration. We considered this to be unreasonable in the circumstances, as this was a decision for Scottish Water to make. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• submit Mr C's request for a burst allowance to Scottish Water for their consideration;
• review their burst allowance policy to ensure it is clear to staff when requests should be submitted to Scottish Water; and
• audit a sample of recent allowance requests to ensure that they have been appropriately processed and evidence the outcome.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Steam failed to act reasonably in respect of backdating his water charges. Mr C's complaint concerned two adjacent properties (property A and property B) that he rented over a period of some years. Mr C initially rented property A for approximately three and a half years. During this time, there was cyclical re-evaluation of the properties; however, as a cyclical re-evaluation, this was not reflected in billing, consistent with Business Stream's policies. Approximately 18 months later, Mr C also rented property B. He continued to rent both property A and property B for approximately three years. Mr C then ceased to occupy property A. At this point, the Scottish Assessor's Association updated the records to merge the properties retrospectively for the period Mr C occupied them both, increasing the value of the properties to account for the re-evaluation. Business Stream sought to backdate Mr C's water charges for this period. Mr C disputed Business Stream's basis for the charges.

After considering the relevant Rateable Value Policy, and obtaining independent advice from a water policy consultant, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that Business Stream had backdated Mr C's water charges based on a later version of their Rateable Value Policy; however, the version of the policy in force at the relevant time specified that water charges would not be backdated in this manner.

We recommended that Business Stream re-assess Mr C's charges, and apologise to him.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• evidence that they have re-assessed the backdating of charges for the relevant period, to take into account the findings of this investigation;
• evidence that they have re-assessed charges from a specific date to ensure that they take into account the appropriate rateable value; and
• apologise for the failings this investigation has identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably rejected his planning application on the basis of reasons which were outwith their jurisdiction. He said that as a result he had to appeal to the local review body, who granted consent, and that this process resulted in additional costs for him.

We found that the council rejected the application on grounds which did not appear to fall within the remit of the planning authority. The rejection focused on an element of the application which related to the marine environment and which was subject to licensing through Marine Scotland, rather than the planning authority. We noted that, where there was doubt about jurisdiction, this should be reflected in the planning officer's report and that this did not happen in this case. We also noted that no reference to the relevant Scottish Government planning circular was made in the officer's report and that the officer failed to fully explain their assessment of the proposals against the planning policy which was used to refuse the application. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for their decision to refuse planning permission on grounds which fell outwith their jurisdiction; and
• reflect on their handling of Mr C's planning application and consider how best to ensure that officers are clear as to the implications of Circular 1/2015 and their responsibilities to justify decisions detailed in their reports in terms of all relevant planning policies.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide a clear and understandable explanation for the council tax changes on her account over a five-month period. She also complained that the council failed to adequately communicate with her following her contact with them over a ten-month period.

We found that while the council had, following our enquiries, been able to provide us with as clear and understandable an explanation as possible, they had not done so for Miss C. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

We noted that the council had not provided either Miss C or us with an explanation for reassessing her council tax on one specific occasion. We also felt that, when it became apparent to the council that the information they were providing was not clear to Miss C, it would have been helpful for them to consider alternative means of communicating this information, for example through a face-to-face discussion. We made recommendations to address these issues.

In relation to Miss C's contact with the council, the council had already recognised that they had provided a poor level of service to Miss C and had apologised to her. We upheld Miss C's complaint. We identified three specific areas where the council's service had been poor and made recommendations accordingly.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Miss C with a clear explanation for reassessing her council tax;
• remind the relevant complaints handling staff to consider all means of resolving a complaint, including face-to-face discussion with the complainant;
• apologise to Miss C for failing to provide a clear and understandable explanation for changes to her council tax; and
• review the circumstances giving rise to the three service issues identified by the council and provide us with evidence that they have taken action to prevent a similar situation occurring in future.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of the decision to change her son (child A)'s school class for the following academic year. Child A had been informed of his class before the school summer holidays. However, very shortly before the beginning of the school term, Mrs C was told that he would not be going into the class of which he had been previously informed.

Mrs C was unhappy with the way the council handled this decision. Specifically, she felt that they had failed to take into account the provisions of the Scottish Government's 'Getting it Right for Every Child' (GIRFEC) approach by not consulting with her, her husband or child A about the decision and that they had failed to provide her with details of the information on which the council's decision had been based.

Mrs C also felt that the council had failed to give a reasonable explanation for their decision, delayed unreasonably in informing her and child A about the decision, and failed to consider the effect the decision would have on child A.

As part of our investigation, we received further information from the council about the complaint. Although we could not provide Mrs C with the confidential information received which had led to the council's decision, we were satisfied that the council's explanation for reaching their decision was reasonable and was in line with their policy on the selection of pupils for classes.

We also considered the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to children, young people and their families understanding what is happening and having their wishes heard and understood. In this case, child A and his family were not adequately informed about what was happening and why, or given the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached. We thought that, had the council contacted child A and his family, this would have also prepared them for the possibility that child A may have to change classes, rather than this decision coming without warning so close to the beginning of term.

We also had concerns that, contrary to the joint working approach set out by GIRFEC, it did not appear that the school was involved in the discussions about the decision, which took place over the summer holiday period. We also concluded that there was an unreasonable delay between the decision being made and this being communicated to child A.

Given that the council did not keep Mrs C's family properly informed and involved and that there was an unreasonable delay in informing them of the decision, we considered that the council did not take appropriate action to limit the upset caused to child A.

Although it did not form part of Mrs C's complaint to us, we identified concerns with record-keeping at the school and the council. The council acknowledged that there was very little physical evidence in relation to this complaint. Our view was that it would be good practice for the school and council to keep a record of discussions where important matters which could have an impact on a child's well-being are discussed. In this case, it was difficult to establish exactly what had happened as there was no record of the relevant discussions within the school and the council.

In light of the above, we upheld Mrs C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• share the findings of this investigation with staff within the education department and remind them of the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to: children, young people and their families being kept informed about what is happening and why, and being listened to and having their wishes heard and understood; and the importance of joint working when making decisions which will impact on a child’s well-being;
• apologise to child A and his family for failing to keep them informed about what was happening and why and not giving them the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached, and for the delay in informing them of the decision;
• remind staff involved in this complaint (including the school) of the importance of recording discussions (including with parents, carers, children, young people and other staff) where important matters which could have an impact on a child’s well-being are discussed; and
• reflect more broadly on the failings identified in this investigation and take any necessary improvement action to prevent a similar situation occurring again, and inform us of any improvements.

Summary

Mr C, a lawyer, complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A). Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling bins from Miss A's address as scheduled, and about the council's handling of Miss A's complaint.

The council acknowledged there had been operational failures leading to missed collections from Miss A's address. For example, collection crews failed to record missed uplifts. This resulted in Miss A having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions. The council's response to Miss A's complaint said they would ensure collections were not missed.

However, as Miss A had to report further missed collections to the council and complain to us, it was clear the council's response to her complaint failed to ensure recycling collections would take place. This called into question the quality of the council's investigation into Miss A's complaint and the remedy put in place as a result of her complaint.

We upheld Mr C's complaints and made recommendations. However, the council has taken action to address the failings in complaints handling and therefore we have made no recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss A for missed recycling collections and explain to Miss A why collections were missed and the steps that have been taken to prevent this from happening;
• ensure that the depot manager engages with Miss A directly to allay any future concerns and give a direct response and assurances in relation to recycling collections; and
• provide us with copies of monitoring sheets for recent collections to show that all recycling collections at Miss A's address have been carried out as scheduled.

Summary

Mrs C is the chair of the board of trustees for a charity and complained on behalf of the charity. The charity had applied for funding from the council's area committee discretionary fund, and their application was considered along with others.

The grant application scoring panel had recommended an award to the charity. However, following a vote to award another organisation a sum of money, a decision was made to award the charity a sum less than had originally been recommended. The other organisation had been recommended for a nil award by the scoring panel, and had not met the minimum points in two key criteria to be eligible for funding, in terms of the scoring framework. The shortfall in the budget had been balanced by reducing the award recommended for the charity. All other applicants were awarded grants in line with the scoring panel's recommendations.

We found that although the council's decision was discretionary, they ought to have provided a clear and robust rationale for deviating from the scoring panel's recommendations. The reason the council gave for their decision was vague, and called into question the entire scoring process. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the lack of transparency in their decision-making process;
• remind elected members of the importance of transparency in all decision-making; and
• review Mrs C's case and reflect on the issues raised in it, with a view to identifying learning and improvement to ensure transparency in future decision-making.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C raised concerns about the council's handling of various planning applications for a site, including their home. In particular, they said that certain applications failed to protect their home by ensuring that its floor level and that of its neighbour were built to a similar level. As a consequence of this, they said that the council failed to assess the impact of their neighbour's sun lounge on their amenity and privacy.

We made enquiries to the council who confirmed that they had since established that the levels of the properties concerned were not in accord with the applications granted and the houses were not built as envisaged. The difference in levels had led to Mr and Mrs C's property being overlooked.

We took independent planning advice and we found that one of the properties concerned was too high, whereas, the other was too low. The consequence of this was that overlooking of Mr and Mrs C's house was unavoidable. The council were largely responsible for this. Similarly, because the floor levels were incorrect, the council would not have been able to properly assess the impact of the neighbours' sun lounge on Mr and Mrs C's property. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology to recognise the situation;
• review the staff guidance notes to include the treatment of window alterations during the course of development as consent variations or as permitted development;
• make a formal apology for their inability to assess the impact of the sun lounge;
• be prepared to meet the costs of any agreed solution; and
• review staff guidance notes on planning application handling with regard to successive permissions issued for the same site; the consistency of conditions which require to be carried through from one permission to any future permission; consideration of site levels and especially any proposed changes for residential amenity and overlooking.

Summary

Miss C complained that the housing association failed to respond reasonably to her complaints of anti-social behaviour by other tenants in her tenement block.

We found that the association did not act in accordance with their procedures when responding to Miss C's concerns and we were not satisfied that they made sufficient efforts to respond to her complaints. For this reason, we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings identified in our investigation;
• ensure that any of Miss C's outstanding concerns about anti-social behaviour are fully investigated and responded to; and
• reflect on the failings identified in this investigation and advise us of the actions they will take to address these.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint against his housing association as he had ongoing problems with damp and water penetration in his property. He first raised a repair request on this matter over two years prior to bringing the case to us. He was of the view that the property needed re-roughcast and re-rendered to resolve the issues. He was not satisfied with the action taken by the association and the length of time it had taken to resolve this issue.

The association apologised for the delay, although they stated that they had completed repairs as requested, in good faith. Part of their investigation uncovered that a redundant chimney stack was the main cause of water ingress in the property. After some further repairs and inspections the association arranged for the chimney stack to be removed. They also apologised to Mr C for the delay and offered compensation, which was declined.

We investigated the case and obtained information from the association. We assessed their response to Mr C's repair requests against their repairs policy and noted that on several occasions repairs were not completed within the set timescales. We also noted that there did not seem to be any measure in place to ensure that repair targets had been met. Mr C was looking for his property to be re-roughcast and the association had said that his house was identified as a property that was due for this type of work but that it was assessed as not being high priority. Given the missed timescales for individual repairs and the overall length of time taken to resolve the problem, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• ensure that they adhere to the deadlines for repairs as laid out in their repairs and maintenance policy;
• ensure staff check that repairs have been completed within an appropriate timescale; and
• conduct a further survey of Mr C's property to assess the current condition of the roughcast and rendering and to determine what priority rating is currently appropriate.