Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to keep accurate information about his council tax account. During our investigation, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him about an offer the council had made to try to resolve the complaint. We had no option but to close our file on his case.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the council administered a statutory notice served on her and her husband (Mr C)'s property. In particular, she was concerned about the tendering process followed by the council, by their failure to seek listed building consent for the works, and their failure to apply for a grant for the works. Additionally, Mrs C was concerned that they had failed to take into account her husband's comments about the need for the works at the time of the initial inspection. Finally, she was concerned about the time it took for the council to issue the final invoice.

We found that the council did follow the required process when appointing contractors to carry out the work. We noted that listed building consent would not be required for these works and that the council had, indeed, applied for grants to contribute to the costs of the work. The grant application was refused by the funder. We had no documented records of Mr C's comments on the works required but, notwithstanding this, any dissatisfaction with the level of works included in the notice is a matter which should be appealed to the sheriff.

A significant level of works were, however, carried out to the property which were not included in the statutory notice. As part of a review of the statutory notice process, this significant additional work was noted and was deducted from the final invoice. As this review took a considerable amount of time, there was a very significant delay in issuing the final invoice. As a result of the mistakes in the invoicing, the inclusion of works not contained in the statutory notice and the significant delay in issuing the invoice, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations to the council as they arranged for this matter to be independently reviewed and suitable remedial action was taken.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a statutory notice issued for repairs to her property. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to inform her that the cost of the repairs had increased from the initial estimate. She also complained that the council had allowed the cost of these works to increase unreasonably; that they had unreasonably carried out works not detailed in the statutory notice; and that they had delayed in issuing the final invoice for the works carried out.

We were concerned that the council were unable to provide documentary evidence that the owners were kept advised of any cost increase in relation to the works, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation. However, during our investigation we found no evidence that the council allowed the costs of the works to increase unreasonably. We found that they had explained that the initial estimate had been prepared following a non-intrusive ground survey and the cost increase had been caused by a more accurate assessment and measurement of the scale of the required repairs. We also found no evidence that the council had carried out works that were not subject to the statutory notice which had been issued.

While we were concerned that the council had delayed in issuing the final invoice we found no evidence that the final account had increased as a result of this delay. We were also mindful that the delay had been accepted by the council and they had apologised to Mrs C for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council about a statutory notice on his property. His complaint was reviewed by consultants acting on behalf of the council. He complained to us that the investigation process, as instructed by the council and carried out by the consultant, was not independent, thorough or fair. Mr C also complained to us that the council had not appropriately explained and documented the amount he was charged.

We found that the project that was subject to the statutory notice had been fully reviewed by the consultant and a sizeable adjustment had been made to the final bill. The council had not therefore acted unreasonably. Further, we found that the charges had been appropriately explained and documented and we were satisfied that Mr C received all of the information the council had provided to other owners in a similar position. In the absence of evidence that this was not the case or that the council had not followed usual practice in explaining and documenting their charges to Mr C, we did not have grounds to determine that the council acted unreasonably, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to the council about the treatment their child received from the head teacher and another teacher at their school. Their child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and has additional support needs. Mr and Mrs C were concerned that this was not being properly taken into account by the school. The council investigated but concluded there was no evidence to support Mr and Mrs C's concerns about unfair treatment or bullying by staff. Mr and Mrs C said the investigation was not impartial and complained about how it had been carried out. The council did not respond to this complaint.

During our consideration of these complaints, the council wrote to us and acknowledged a number of issues with their original investigation and response to Mr and Mrs C's complaints. They identified five recommendations that they were taking forward as a result of their review of the case. The council also advised that Mr and Mrs C's later complaint about how the council's investigation was carried out had not been responded to appropriately. We considered that the failings identified in the council's investigation amounted to maladministration and we upheld both of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. We made a number of our own recommendations to address the issues identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr and Mrs C with a written apology for the failings identified during our investigation;
• provide us with an update on the outcome of the five recommendations identified by the council following their own review of the investigation;
• carry out checks at the school to ensure that appropriate support strategy records are being maintained for pupils with ADHD; and
• make staff aware of the importance of their tone and use of language in case notes and correspondence.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council about their handling of his request to have his home adapted. He was unhappy with their decision and asked for this to be reviewed by the complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C was dissatisfied with the way that the CRC considered his complaint and asked us to look at his concerns. Mr C complained that the CRC had failed to adequately consider the information provided and that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the CRC had an extensive pack of information available to them and had heard the position of both sides. We also found that Mr C had agreed that the CRC should reach their decision on the basis of the evidence they had already heard and so we were not critical that they had reached their decision after considering the information available to them at that time.

While we did find that there had been a significant deviation from the statutory timescales for a CRC, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for this. Adaptations were made to the standard practice due to Mr C's condition, which meant that the case could not be heard over one or two days as normal. Availability of all parties, including Mr C, council staff and CRC panel members, then became a factor in reconvening the meeting. We were satisfied that the delays were reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.

Summary

Mr C raised his concerns about the handling of his wedding by Leisure and Culture Dundee. In particular, Mr C complained that when he met with an officer he was provided with inaccurate information before booking his wedding and that he planned his wedding around this inaccurate information. As a result, he had had to reduce the number of guests attending the ceremony and cancel the live music he had booked and paid for. He was also unhappy with the handling of his complaint.

During our investigation we found no objective evidence that inaccurate information had been provided verbally to Mr C prior to booking his wedding. Arrangements for the wedding had been based on the information contained within the booking form. We were also satisfied that Leisure and Culture Dundee had taken action to ensure that in future there will be a record of information given to customers; customers will be provided with an information leaflet; there will be three members of staff available to meet with customers; and customers will be provided with a named officer.

However, we were concerned about aspects of the handling of Mr C's complaint at the second stage of Leisure and Culture Dundee's complaints procedure, and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Leisure and Culture Dundee:

• apologise for their handling of Mr C's complaint; and
• ensure that staff adhere to the complaints process, in particular, in relation to extending timescales, updating complainants, and ensuring that complainants receive a full explanation for the decision reached on their complaint.

Summary

Mr C took over business premises and carried out alterations to sub-divide it into separate units which he hoped could be rated separately for non-domestic rates purposes. Mr C said that Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board did not communicate effectively with him about the valuations.

We found that although the valuation joint board had visited Mr C's business premises, there was no clear record of what had been discussed or agreed during that visit in terms of how the units would be treated from a valuation perspective, particularly concerning an interconnecting door between two of the units and a unit which had been further sub-divided into offices. Although the valuation joint board said they had explained to Mr C what was required before the units could be split we found a lack of evidence to support that position.

We found it had taken too long for the valuation joint board to separate one of the units, even after they had all the information they needed. They continued to contact Mr C by phone after he had asked twice for communication to be in writing or by email. We found it took too long for the valuation joint board to acknowledge an appeal and a complaint made by Mr C. We also found that an addressing error was not corrected in the timescale claimed by the valuation joint board.

Additionally we found the valuation joint board's response to Mr C's complaint failed to properly address a key issue that he had complained about, notably that their communication failed to address the points he had raised, which was unacceptable. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• carry out a review of record-keeping and communication, taking into account the issues identified with a view to making improvements and communicating changes to staff, and report back when the review is complete; and
• offer an apology for the communication failings identified.

Summary

When Mr and Mrs C decided to buy their housing association property they needed certificates from the council which showed their council tax payments were up to date. When they asked for the certificates the council said one could not be issued for Mrs C because she had council tax arrears. The council said the debt would need to be managed by their debt management partner.

We found that when Mr C first contacted the council they took around six weeks to deal with his enquiry, which was too long. The council provided inaccurate information to Mrs C by failing to include arrears from a previous address. The council also failed to pass the correct information to the debt management partner, which meant that Mrs C was only asked to pay a portion of the total amount outstanding. This caused a further delay. It was not until after Mr C complained that the council realised they had not notified Mr and Mrs C about arrears that Mrs C had at a previous address. All of this amounted to unreasonable confusion. The council explained that these things were the result of staff error.

We considered the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We found that the council had responded in time to the complaint. However the response failed to address Mr C's questions about how or why discrepancies had arisen in respect of the amounts owed, or what action had been taken as a result.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the multiple failings identified in the administration of the council tax debt and in the handling of the complaint; and
• provide a balanced account which sets out exactly what was owed in council tax, broken down by year, which accounts for all the amounts paid, any charges added, and any amounts written off.

Summary

Mr C, who is a landlord, asked the council to pay his tenant's housing benefit directly to himself. The council failed to do this and the tenant did not pass on the payment to Mr C.

The council explained that when Mr C requested the housing benefit be paid to him, the tenant had not yet been granted housing benefit. They made a note on the file. The council acknowledged they had failed to ensure the payment, when authorised, was paid to Mr C. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

We noted that the council had apologised for the error and spoken to the relevant staff about the matter. Therefore we did not make any recommendations about this.

As the investigation progressed, it became clear that the tenant had not been entitled to housing benefit. Therefore, even if payment had been made to the landlord correctly, the council would have been within their powers to pursue the landlord for the overpayment. It is for the landlord and not the council to pursue their tenant for any outstanding rent they are due.