Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the actions of his local community council. The council told Mr C that they could not consider his complaints until he had exhausted the complaints procedure of the community council. They had previously told him this in relation to another complaint he made about the community council. Mr C was dissatisfied with aspects of the council's response and complained to them that their response had contained inaccuracies and that their position was unreasonable. The council repeated their previous response to Mr C. Mr C was dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. We found that the council's response to his first complaint was reasonable, and did not uphold that complaint. However, we found that the issues Mr C raised in his second complaint were not the same as those in his first complaint and, therefore, that the council's response to this complaint was unreasonable. We upheld Mr C's second complaint.

Summary

Mr C was receiving an individual budget from the council under a self-directed support pilot scheme. Mr C was responsible for arranging his own social care support in line with a plan and outcomes he agreed with the council. At the end of the pilot scheme Mr C was asked by the council to repay £1050 which he had withdrawn from the individual budget in cash. The council said Mr C had failed to prove the money had been used to meet agreed outcomes. Mr C said he had given the council clear evidence of legitimate expenditure.

Mr C complained about the way the council had treated his complaint. In particular he said he was not given an opportunity to contribute his evidence to the process before a decision was made.

We found that when Mr C wrote to the council they failed to tell him the matter was being treated as a financial appeal rather than as a complaint. They incorrectly said their resource allocation panel amounted to a statutory appeal process. The council assessed the complaint under their corporate complaints handling procedure when the complaints should rightly have been considered and assessed for eligibility under the statutory social work complaint process. We asked the council to review their handling of Mr C's complaint.

We found that Mr C was not given a proper opportunity to contribute his evidence to the financial appeal process before it was considered by the resource allocation panel.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the handling of this complaint taking into account the council's statutory obligations in respect of social work complaints and advise Mr C and us of the outcome; and
• offer Mr C the opportunity to provide further details and / or evidence of the disputed expenditure and provide a further response which fully and clearly deals with all points not already addressed.

Summary

Ms A was a tenant of the council. After vacating her property, she received a bill for works to fix damage that had been caused by the installation and use of a dishwasher. She complained about this to the council as the dishwasher had been installed by the previous tenant. The council said that she had taken over the tenancy as a mutual exchange of properties with the previous tenant. She had signed an agreement to say that she was responsible for any repairs or replacements that the outgoing tenant had not dealt with. Ms A was dissatisfied and her partner (Mr C) brought her complaints to us. We found that the agreement was clear that Ms A was responsible and, therefore, there was no evidence of maladministration or service failure.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when, during roadworks, the council withdrew the normal bus service to his village. They said they did this because the process of keeping bus operators and the public informed as the roadworks progressed was complex and likely to fail. They considered that a taxi-bus service was the best solution based on experience at other locations. Mr C disagreed, saying that the actions taken by the council were disproportionate and created more disruption than was necessary.

Our investigation considered how the decision was taken and how it was communicated. We found that the council took the decision to keep public buses out of the village during roadworks because road closures would require them to reverse, which is considered unsafe. The local bus service was advised of this. We also found that, before the works started, the council held a public exhibition, they issued letters to residents and businesses, and they placed a notice in the local newspaper and in public areas. The information provided included details about the replacement taxi-bus service. This meant that the council had followed their policy, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a council tenant, complained to us about two issues regarding reports he had made to the council about the anti-social behaviour of his neighbour. Firstly, he complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures by deciding not to investigate his reports. We found that he had been told that his reports did not constitute anti-social behaviour in terms of the relevant legislation, and his case was closed on these grounds. On reviewing the council's anti-social behaviour procedures, it became clear that his complaint should have been passed to the local housing office and investigated through the procedure. This had not been done and, as such, we upheld his complaint.

He also complained that the council had failed to progress repairs to his property to stop smells entering from his neighbour's property. On investigation, it became clear that the council had attempted to progress these works, but Mr C had refused to allow the works to go ahead unless they were done on a Saturday. The council had sent Mr C a letter, clearly stating that Saturdays were outwith their normal working hours and the works would not go ahead until he proposed a suitable time. We found this to be a reasonable response and, as such, did not uphold this part of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• re-open Mr C's case, and investigate his complaints in line with their stated procedures;
• review their anti-social behaviour procedures to rectify the discrepancies identified in our investigation; and
• provide training to relevant staff on the anti-social behaviour procedures they are required to follow.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) following the council's decision to terminate her cello lessons. Miss A received cello lessons from the council but these were terminated as her instructor had learnt that she was also receiving private lessons, which the instructor felt was a breach of the council's Instrumental Music Services (IMS) policy. However, Mrs C said that she had consulted the policy, and felt that it allowed short-term supplementary lessons, which was what her daughter was receiving. In the council's response to us, it was clear that a member of the IMS management staff agreed with this interpretation and, on review of the policy, so did we. We therefore agreed that Miss A's cello lessons were unreasonably terminated, and upheld the complaint.

Mrs C also complained about the way in which the decision was communicated. Miss A's instructor told Miss A verbally, and Mrs C felt that she and her husband should have been notified. The council confirmed in their response to us that they would expect a discussion to take place with parents before a decision was made, and that the parents should be notified directly of a decision to terminate lessons. As this did not happen, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified by our investigation;
• explain clearly to Mrs C their stance on whether it is appropriate for pupils to receive short-term supplementary lessons alongside authority lessons; and
• provide us with evidence of their stated commitment to provide guidelines to IMS staff regarding termination of lessons.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a track running next to her house on land she owned was included in a public list of core paths identified by the council, intended to give walkers and cyclists recreational access throughout an area. Mrs C thought she, her neighbour and the Forestry Commission had the exclusive right to use the track. She said nobody consulted with her directly before including the track in the core path network. We found there was a general right of access for walkers and cyclists to land and inland water throughout Scotland. Mrs C provided no evidence that her track was excluded from this and we found that, even before the track was designated as a core path, people had the right to walk on it. We found that the council were not obliged to consult directly with individual landowners under the legislation and concluded that the council's public consultation had been reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in issuing the final invoice for works to his home required following the issue of a statutory notice in 2007. The works were carried out in 2008 but it was not until January 2015 that the invoice was issued. Mr C was also concerned that this invoice included works carried out under previous statutory notices he had already paid for.

In responding to his complaint the council confirmed that the invoice for these works was correctly itemised and they explained the works carried out under this, and previous statutory notices.

We considered the evidence provided by both parties. Having done so, we were satisfied that the council had invoiced Mr C for the correct works which were carried out under this statutory notice and that these were distinct from the additional statutory notice work carried out separately. We also noted the steps taken by the council to review each statutory notice case as part of a wider review of their property conservation department. This extensive review carried out by an external agency delayed the issuing of invoices but was carried out in order to ensure that residents were being correctly billed by the council. However, even taking account of the review, we noted that there were significant delays in the council issuing the final invoice and for this reason, we upheld this element of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C owns a property in Edinburgh. The council issued a statutory notice requiring repairs to chimneys shared with a neighbouring property. A separate notice had been served for work required at the neighbouring property. The property owners asked the council to take over management of the required works, and a project manager and contractor were appointed. An estimate was provided detailing the likely cost and timescale for the works. Scaffolding was erected and a full survey carried out. Mr C complained that, once the scaffolding was erected, the project suffered from unreasonable delays and unexplained increases in the associated costs. Despite his requests for clarification, he was not provided with an adequate explanation as to why the costs had increased.

We found the communication from the council and their contractors to be poor. The costs associated with Mr C's property actually decreased, however, no clear explanation was given to him as to what he was being charged for. An independent investigation was carried out to assess the validity of the charges and we were satisfied that the council took Mr C's concerns seriously, waiving costs that had been added to the project unreasonably. However, we were critical of the quality of their communication throughout the project.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to clearly explain the costs associated with the statutory notice work at his property; and
• waive 50 percent of Mr C's administration fee.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council about damp in her house. Following an inspection, the council advised that they would engage a damp-proofing specialist to remedy the potential failure of a damp-proof course and potential rising damp. The council did not do this within a timescale Miss C considered reasonable and she raised her complaints with us. We found that there had been a delay in engaging a specialist and that this was caused by an administrative oversight. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C directly for the unreasonable delay in the engagement of a damp-proofing specialist.