Local Government

Summary

Mrs C brought a complaint on behalf of Mrs A, who lives in a block of accommodation. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew their offer of grant funding towards works required to bring Mrs A's house up to a reasonable standard. She also complained that the council failed to provide Mrs A with assistance in seeking agreement from the other property owners in the block to arrange for the works to be carried out.

We found that the block in which Mrs A's home was included was identified as being sub-standard. Initially the council's efforts were directed towards assisting owners of the properties concerned to arrange for the works to be completed to bring the properties up to a habitable standard. To assist with this, the council offered grants towards the costs of the works. However, as the owners did not agree to carry out the works themselves, the council were required, using their powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, to intervene and take responsibility for arranging for the works to be completed. As they were required to carry out the works, they withdrew their offer of grant funding.

We found that the council had provided advice and assistance to owners in their efforts to progress the improvement works. It was noted, however, that Mrs A had not requested additional support. We noted that the decision to withdraw grant funding where owners do not agree to take forward the improvement works themselves was in line with the council's scheme of assistance. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a statutory notice served for roof works affecting a property owned by him. He complained that he had not received a notice served notifying owners that the works would be executed. He also complained that the council had failed to provide a 20-year guarantee on materials and labour for works to a flat roof on the building which had been agreed before works commenced.

On investigation, the council provided copies of all notices served in connection with the works and we found no evidence that the council had failed to properly serve any notice. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

However, it was clear from their correspondence with owners that a guarantee was agreed but never provided. We found that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to secure the guarantee from the contractor on completion of works. As such, we upheld this complaint. Following our enquiry the council were able to secure the guarantee from the contractor and provided copies of this to all affected owners.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C raised a complaint with the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) regarding home care. As the complaint was regarding social work, it was progressed through the statutory social work complaints procedure and a complaints review committee (CRC) was held. Mr C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that while there had been a delay in the CRC being held, it was not unreasonable. We concluded that there was no evidence of bias. We were satisfied that the council had handled the request for the CRC to be recorded in a reasonable way. We were satisfied with the council's explanation regarding the effect of the power of attorney on the complaint and that the CRC had accepted Mr C was the power of attorney. Mr C had decided not to continue with the CRC and therefore they were not given the opportunity to consider the complaint itself at the meeting. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

We did have concerns that the council had subsequently written to Mr C stating that they would not reschedule the CRC and referred him to the SPSO as this meant that the complaint that had been raised was not actually considered at CRC stage, which is a complainant's right under the statutory social work complaints procedure. We also had concerns that the council continued to correspond with Mr C following the referral to the SPSO after the CRC and treated his correspondence as a new complaint. We therefore made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer Mr C a final option to have this complaint considered by a CRC on the basis of the written submissions he and the council had previously made to the CRC; and
• remind staff that complaints about complaints handling should not normally be treated as a new complaint and that if appropriate, complainants should be referred to the SPSO.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate within a reasonable timescale a complaint about his neighbour conducting a business from their home. He also complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaints. He said that the council's decision that there had been no breach of planning control had been made without all the facts required to make an evidence-based decision.

We took independent planning advice which stated that the council could exercise its discretion when deciding whether a breach of planning control had occurred. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the council to have decided how much weight to give to information submitted by Mr C, as opposed to the evidence gathered by its own offices. We found the council had conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation and whilst there had been delays, these had been due to engagement with government agencies over which the council had no control. We also found the council had reached a reasonable decision based on the evidence available to it.

We found that although the council had responded to Mr C's complaints, it had not done so in a way that made it clear that the response was part of the complaints process, rather than the wider correspondence Mr C was having with the council. The council had recognised this when reviewing their investigation and taken action to address this failure.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. In response to Miss C's complaint, the council told her they had investigated her concerns. They noted that her reports were related to noise that would be expected during her neighbour's daily use of the property and that making this noise was not considered to be anti-social behaviour.

Miss C was unhappy with the council's decision. We investigated and noted that the council's anti-social behaviour team had responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On two occasions they had taken steps to warn her neighbour about the noise but were satisfied that on other occasions there were no instances of anti-social behaviour. They did note that her property had poor sound insulation and carried out works accordingly. However, Miss C continued to report noise.

We accepted that Miss C had suffered from the noise but were satisfied that the council had investigated Miss C's concerns and taken action where appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to resolve flooding in his house which appeared to be coming from a nearby culverted burn (a burn that is diverted through a pipe). Although the council undertook some investigations including a camera survey which found that the pipe did not follow the expected route, they were not able to survey the full length of the pipe due to an inaccessible manhole. They told Mr C they were not responsible for repairs as the problem appeared to be on private land.

Mr C disagreed and contacted his councillor. After a meeting with all parties the council agreed to undertake a dowser survey (a test used to detect the presence of water) to trace the route of the pipe. The survey was undertaken but the council did not contact Mr C after this or respond to his email asking about next steps.

After investigating these issues we upheld Mr C's complaint about communication. We found it was unreasonable that the council did not share the results of the dowser survey with Mr C or respond to his email about this. We also found the council did not give Mr C clear and consistent information about what he could expect from them as they told him the repairs were not their responsibility but also continued to indicate that future work was anticipated.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the repairs as we found the council had taken reasonable steps to check that the repairs were not their responsibility.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure in communication;
• remind relevant staff of the importance of documenting meetings, in particular agreed outcomes; and
• consider and address relevant staff training needs in relation to clear communication and managing expectations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaint about a letter written to her husband which contained comments about her. In particular, she was concerned that the council had not contacted her during their investigation of her complaint. She also complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a request to defer her son's entry to primary school. In particular, she was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the information provided and the handling of her complaint.

While we had some concerns about aspects of the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint to them, we were satisfied that the council had explained why they had written to Mrs C's husband. However, we did not consider that the council's position on not considering information during an investigation which was covertly obtained was reasonable. We were also satisfied that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for the information provided and saw no evidence of fault in the handling of Mrs C's complaint about this matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the handling of this complaint; and
• in view of the legal advice detailed in this case, reconsider their position for future cases on the admissibility of material presented in a complaint which has been obtained covertly.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council handled her concerns about a breach of planning control by her neighbours who had built a balcony. She complained that it did not meet the minimum distance requirements for privacy. Ms C also pointed out that while the council said they followed guidance, the guidance did not refer to balconies. She questioned therefore how the council could say they followed guidance.

In addition, Ms C pointed out that the council elected to use window to window minimum distance measurements for assessing privacy, but she noted that the council themselves pointed out that the minimum distances were not met.

We requested all of the relevant information from the council and also sought independent planning advice. We noted that, prior to our involvement in this case, the council had acknowledged their failings and had taken action to remedy them. In particular, the council recognised that their Guidance to Householders was insufficient with regard to balconies and privacy and accepted that it should be reviewed.

The adviser confirmed that the use of enforcement powers is a discretionary matter for the council. The adviser also concluded that the council had addressed the concerns Ms C raised and that their officers applied the most appropriate guidance available to them at the time. We accepted this view and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of statutory notices issued in relation to his property.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the notification process in relation to the issue of the statutory notices or that they had failed to follow procedures in relation to the decision to administer the works on behalf of owners.

While we were concerned that the council's project file was incomplete in relation to the repairs carried out, the project had been reviewed by an independent adviser appointed by the council, who was satisfied that the works carried out were within the scope of the statutory notices and the final bill issued to owners was correct. We were also aware that action had been taken by the council to improve record-keeping in relation to project files for works undertaken to comply with statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably invoiced him for the cost of work associated with two emergency statutory notices carried out four years previously. These had been issued to make safe masonry on a building where Mr C owns a flat. Mr C was concerned that the council could only provide evidence of the amount they paid the contractor for the work, rather than an itemised bill. He was also concerned about the length of time it took the council to invoice him for the share of the costs.

The council said that invoices from the contractor could not be retrieved as the company was no longer trading. They said that the invoices were submitted by the contractor electronically through the council's internal payment system, therefore there was no paper copy on record other than printouts confirming the payments the council had made to the contractor. The council said that there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory, and so they felt the invoices were accurate and recoverable from the owners.

We were critical that the council was unable to provide records to show that the site had been inspected to verify completion of the work before payment was authorised to the contractor. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory. We were satisfied that the council had implemented guidance on the emergency statutory notice process. We also found that the council had delayed issuing the invoices due to an investigation into their former property conservation section and that the council was entitled to pursue the outstanding costs after four years. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.