Local Government

Summary

Mr C applied to the council for a Community Care Grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund after moving into a new, unfurnished home. He was initially awarded the majority of items he requested but was refused others, including hallway and bathroom carpets, a washing machine, and a microwave. Dissatisfied with this, he requested a review of the decision and was awarded a washing machine. He then requested a further review stating that he felt that not having a microwave and hallway or bathroom flooring was unacceptable due to his medical circumstances. However, this was refused, prompting Mr C to complain to us.

We found that the council had acted correctly when considering Mr C's medical circumstances at the first and second stages. However, they failed to evidence that they had considered his medical circumstances when assessing his final request for review and we found the level of information recorded at this stage to be poor. They had also failed to follow up on an offer from Mr C to provide supporting evidence from his doctor or social worker, which we found unreasonable in the circumstances. For these reasons, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings highlighted by our investigation; and
• seek advice from Mr C's doctor and social worker regarding the medical circumstances he described and then reconsider his Community Care Grant application.

Summary

Ms C complained that after moving into a new flat she experienced ongoing issues with her bins not being emptied by the council.

It was clear from the evidence that Ms C's bins were not collected on multiple occasions. We were satisfied that the council had taken steps to arrange bin collections when Ms C contacted them and also that they had made sure that the refuse crews and the supervisor were aware of the situation and the need to include Ms C's property on the weekly bin run. However, despite this, there were still occasions when Ms C's bins were not emptied.

The council provided a number of different reasons for the missed bin collections. We found that the reasons supplied by the council were confusing and inconsistent. However, the council later advised that the main issue was the lack of a working key to access the bin store in Ms C's property, which they had resolved. We considered it was unreasonable that the council had taken five months to resolve this and arrange access to the bin store. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint and made two recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their repeated failure to collect her refuse; and
• conduct a review of bin collections at Ms C's property since the bin store key issue was resolved; inform us of the outcome of that review, and what, if any, further action is taken on collections that have been missed.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the lack of action taken by the council when she reported noise and other nuisance or anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a council tenant. Mrs C eventually moved out and rented her property out. Mrs C contacted the council to complain when her tenant began to experience the same anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy. Specifically, when nuisance was reported, we found that the council had visited the property and tried to get statements from the person who reported the nuisance and / or neighbours. Each time they visited they left calling cards. The council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This did not happen because people moved out or did not want the equipment installed. The council also asked people to make statements or to fill in diary records but these were not returned. The council also worked with the tenant who was causing the problem to try to improve the situation, for example by getting the tenant to agree her dog would be kept on a lead when exiting or entering the block and would not foul the drying green area.

When the council did receive the evidence they needed they acted swiftly and issued a warning to the tenant in line with their policy, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that as part of the process for a community buy-out, the council misrepresented information about the valuation of the property to elected members. He also said that officers reneged on an agreement about discounting the sale and unreasonably failed to pass his complaint about these matters to an independent party.

We investigated the complaint and we found that there was no evidence to suggest that the language used about the valuation obtained by Mr C (and the group with whom he was associated) was in any way misleading or misrepresented the facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that an agreement had been given to Mr C about a discounted price upon which the council subsequently reneged. In all, we found that the council dealt appropriately with Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C, who is a GP, complained that the council failed to communicate with her about their handling of a child protection matter that she had raised with a head teacher. We found that the council had acted reasonably in referring Ms C to the body leading the investigation and that their approach to information sharing was in line with the guidance. We were satisfied that in the circumstances the council were correct not to share information not least because it was not clear why Ms C wanted it or what the information would be used for.

We found that the council had responded in a timeous way to Ms C’s complaint. Although Ms C felt that the council should have continued to engage with her further correspondence at the end of the complaints process, we did not agree, not least because the prospect of resolving matters to her satisfaction was remote.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the way in which the council had dealt with his complaint and so requested that it be dealt with by way of a Complaints Review Committee (CRC). This was in line with the council's social work policy and was acknowledged by them in May 2014. Mr C complained that, thereafter, the council failed to follow their stated procedure in that there was a delay and he did not receive a copy of the report produced. He also complained that officers acted unreasonably towards him by saying that he was pedantic and by trying to get him to withdraw his complaint.

We found that although it took a while for a CRC to be held, this was for reasons outwith the council's control. However, there was a delay in issuing the decision to Mr C and contrary to their policy, he was not sent a copy of the final report. This part of his complaint was, therefore, upheld. We found no proof to confirm that Mr C had been called pedantic or that the council had tried to persuade him to abandon his complaint. It was clear that the council had given him choices about how to proceed, either by way of a hearing or on the basis of written submissions, and it was also clear that the final decision lay with Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make an appropriate apology; and
• provide Mr C with a copy of the final report as submitted.

Summary

Mr C complained about the time taken to install a warning sign on the road near his home, about the council's communication with him, and their handling of his complaint.

We looked at the council's file on Mr C's complaints and concluded that, in the circumstances, they had taken an unreasonable time to install the sign (it had taken eight months from the date it was agreed that the sign should be installed). The council failed to respond to Mr C's requests for progress updates or took an unreasonable time to do so, and they did not give him a detailed explanation for the delay in installing the sign, which he specifically asked for. We also found that the council failed to follow the complaints procedure, and their responses to him did not always include clear apologies. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence of action taken to prevent the incorrect prioritisation of road sign requests;
• provide us with evidence of improvements made in record-keeping and task handover management;
• refresh their understanding of the complaints procedure;
• reflect on the handling of stage 1 of Mr C's complaint, taking account of the complaints procedure; and
• familiarise themselves with our guidance on apology.

Summary

Miss C and Mr C complained about how the council had processed their council tax and how they had communicated with them about their liability and payments. Miss C and Mr C also complained about how the council responded to their complaint.

Miss C and Mr C missed two council tax payments and on each occasion the council sent them reminder notices. They missed a third payment, and the council passed the debt to a debt management partner (DMP) for collection.

We found that the council had explained the amounts Miss C and Mr C would owe and had set out a payment schedule of when to pay. We also noted the council had appropriately processed the payments they had made. We therefore did not uphold these complaints.

However, we found the council had not used accurate figures in the response to Miss and Mr C's complaint. They also failed to explain that the outstanding amount was from a charge levied by the DMP, over and above the council tax owed. Both of these things had caused confusion and we upheld this complaint.

Furthermore, we noted the council had not provided copies of information held by their DMP, as we would expect, and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the error identified;
• feed back to relevant staff the outcome of this decision, particularly regarding the importance of explaining all relevant charges; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of providing all relevant documents to us, including those they can source from external contractors.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council after waiting over a year for repairs to the front door of his council tenancy. At the time he first approached us the repairs had still not been completed and the council had advised him that this was due to numerous issues regarding door suppliers, two of whom had ceased trading in the last year. The repairs took place during our investigation, 17 months after they were first reported.

In response to our enquiries, the council accepted that the suppliers going out of business did not justify the length of time Mr C had waited for the repairs. They stated that there had also been a number of errors of communication and monitoring on their part, contributing to the delays. As a result of this, they committed to implementing new systems to avoid similar mistakes in future.

On investigation, we found that, whilst some of the delays were outwith the council's control, the majority had been caused by poor administrative handling on their part. We also found that they had failed in some of their duties in relation to the Right to Repair scheme. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the additional failings identified by our investigation;
• offer Mr C the maximum compensation of £100 available under the Right to Repair scheme; and
• remind relevant staff of the council's responsibilities under the Right to Repair scheme.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council after they forcibly entered his property whilst attempting to stop a leak reported by his downstairs neighbour. After the council turned off the water to Mr C's property, his neighbour reported that the leak had slowed and then stopped.

This led the council to advise that Mr C should seek the services of a plumber to inspect his property for the source of the leak. He did this but the plumber was unable to locate any leak and concluded that the council's assessment that the leak originated in his property was incorrect. As a result of this, the council agreed to waive their recovery of the costs of entering his property but Mr C was unhappy that they refused to pay the insurance excess he had to pay as a result of what he considered to be unnecessary inspection work.

On investigation, we considered that, based on the information available to the council at the time, their assessment that the leak originated in his property had been reasonable. They had followed their procedures in entering Mr C's property and turning off the water, and we found their agreement to waive their recovery of costs to be good practice in the circumstances. We did not deem it to be reasonable to expect them to pay Mr C's insurance excess, as we considered he had a responsibility to ensure that his property was not the source of the leak.