Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the standard of work undertaken at their property by a company installing insulated cladding. The company had a contract with the council, who were coordinating this work under Scottish Government grant funding. The company were responsible for offering the insulation works to owner occupiers, and Mr and Mrs C signed a contract for them to deliver this work.

The council's role was to monitor the works as they were being undertaken, to ensure that they were of an appropriate standard, and to ensure that appropriate materials were used. This was to ensure that the final product fulfilled the criteria for a full warranty on the works. They also took on a role as intermediary in any dispute between the company and Mr and Mrs C.

Our investigation found that the council inspected the works as they progressed, and were satisfied with the work on site. Mr and Mrs C started to express dissatisfaction when the work was nearly completed. The council discussed these concerns with them and with the company. Over the period of a year they worked with both sides to try and find a satisfactory resolution to the issues raised, but Mr and Mrs C remained dissatisfied.

We found that the council had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to the work being undertaken and we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We did however note that Mr and Mrs C's contract was with the company, so they could pursue the issue further with the company if they wished to do so.

Summary

Miss C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application; in particular, that the development had not been built in line with approved plans. Miss C was also concerned that she had not been notified about amended plans which had been submitted. She also complained that the council failed to include a screening condition within the planning decision notice, and about the council's handling of her representations.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Miss C's concerns about the planning merits of the development and while there was a variation in relation to the height of the development, this was small and did not represent a material difference. As such, no further action was necessary. We found no evidence of fault in the handling of the planning application. While we also found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision that there was no need for a screening condition, we were concerned that Miss C had been provided with conflicting information on this matter.

While we did not find that the council's responses to Miss C's representations were unreasonable, we found that they should have clarified at an earlier stage whether Miss C was raising a complaint in terms of their complaints handling procedure and should have provided information on progressing her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure in relation to identifying complaints at the outset and providing relevant information on progressing a complaint;
• apologise for their handling of this matter; and
• review this case to see if any further lessons can be learned to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the council's application of their unacceptable actions policy (UAP). Mr A had been in contact with the council over a number of years about matters relating to the care of his child. Following concern about the nature and frequency of Mr A's contact with the council, they notified him that they had applied their UAP to manage his contact with them.

We found that the council had decided to implement their UAP after proper consideration had been given to Mr A's communication with their staff, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the council had applied the UAP inconsistently or that they had acted unreasonably in not inviting either Ms C or Mr A to meetings regarding his child, so we also did not uphold these aspects of the complaint although we did make a recommendation about the council's procedures for arranging such meetings.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that there appeared to be an ad-hoc approach to the council reviewing Mr A's status under the UAP and lack of communication with him about this, although we were satisfied that they had since carried out a review, so we did not make any further recommendations about this. We also found that there were unreasonable delays in some of the council's responses to Mr A's complaint, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint too.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that parents are notified of the dates of any forthcoming reviews regarding their children; and
• take steps to ensure that complainants' representatives are notified if UAP restrictions are to apply to their correspondence as well.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council after they refused to provide her with a bigger bin. She stated that the current provision was not sufficient for her needs as she had a large household. However, the council had carried out assessments of her waste and found material they said could have been recycled or disposed of in other ways. They stated that, had this taken place, she would have had sufficient capacity for her needs but Miss C disputed that the assessments had been accurate.

On investigation, we found that the council had photographic evidence to support their statements and, while this was not conclusive due to the nature of the assessments, there was no evidence available to suggest that they had acted incorrectly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

However, we also identified that the council's second stage complaint response had been very brief and lacked sufficient detail to fully explain the reasons for their decision. As such, we made recommendations in relation to this failing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the lack of detail provided in their complaint response; and
• reflect on this to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the level of detail required in a second stage response.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of complaints with the council about how she felt the school were failing to provide a safe and supportive environment for her oldest son. Mrs C also complained that the response to her youngest son's allegation about being hit by a teacher was inadequate.

After the council investigated the issues, it found the school considered that some of the incidents could have been handled differently. Whilst the issues were addressed by the school over time, we found that they should have been addressed from the outset given they related to a young child's health and safety, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We did not uphold Mrs C's other complaints. We identified sufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to address her oldest son's support needs at an early stage and measures put in place with appropriate review taking place. There was also insufficient evidence to indicate that there was an issue with him being bullied. Although we considered that the council's response to Mrs C's complaint about her youngest son being hit by a teacher should have been fuller - and we made a recommendation about this - we found that there was clear evidence to demonstrate the school had taken reasonable action to investigate the allegations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not addressing the health and safety concerns in a timely manner; and
• ensure that witness statements are obtained where appropriate, and relevant information is included in complaint responses, in order to demonstrate that the issues have been thoroughly investigated and the outcome clearly explained.

Summary

Ms C complained that, following an agreement with the council that certain items would be removed from her late father's property following his death, the council in fact cleared the whole property, including personal effects.

The council acknowledged that this had been due to a miscommunication between their staff and apologised for the error. They had offered compensation but Ms C was not satisfied with the amount offered and that the rationale behind the amount had not been explained to her. Despite Ms C requesting an explanation from the council shortly after they made the offer, no explanation was forthcoming, despite a reminder from Ms C. The council eventually explained that a proportion of the compensation reflected the estimated cost of furnishings removed from the property and a proportion was intended to provide a contribution towards a memorial for Ms C's father in recognition of the personal items that were lost as a result of the miscommunication. However, this explanation was not given until some two and a half months later, and after Ms C had brought her complaint to us.

Our investigation focused on the council's delay in providing the explanation and found that despite the information being readily available at the time of Ms C's original request, it was not provided in a timely manner. The information was neither confidential nor commercially sensitive so there was no reason not to provide it to Ms C. We found this to be unreasonable, so we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in explaining the rationale behind the compensation offer.