Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of complaints about some of their tenants in a neighbouring property, which was used by the council to temporarily house homeless households from 2011 to 2014. Mrs C complained about the way her complaints were handled by the council and, in particular, that the council had failed to investigate the issues raised and had failed to keep her advised of the progress and outcome of their investigations.

Our investigation found that concerns were raised about the tenants of the neighbouring property during 2011, and that the council explained the action they had taken. Incidents continued to be reported to the council, and the council continued to investigate these incidents and take action that they considered appropriate.

The council said they accepted that, during the time they had used the property, residents in the neighbouring block had had cause to complain about anti-social behaviour. They indicated they were sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused, and decided that the property would be returned to the owner and would no longer be used by the council to accommodate homeless households.

We were satisfied that the council took action on the incidents reported and kept the complainants informed of the action taken. While we did not uphold the complaint, we did find that it would have been helpful to support Mrs C by issuing her with an incident diary.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that they adhere to their procedures in relation to the issue of incident diaries where appropriate.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her 14 year old son had been shown a sex education video that was unreasonably graphic and that when she requested details about the content of the remainder of the course, these were not provided. As a consequence, she removed her son from the school's relationships, sexual health and parenthood (RSHP) course but complained that he was unreasonably treated by staff who she said tried to bully him to return.

All the information provided by Mrs C and the council was given careful consideration but there was no evidence to show that the council had been unreasonable in their provision of information. Mrs C was offered the opportunity to see and discuss the material about which she was concerned and reassured that it had been approved by all local councils, the NHS and Police Scotland. She was sent leaflets and directed to a website for further information; they offered to give her a week's notice of subjects on the course concerned. While the school agreed that it was Mrs C's decision to remove her son from the sex education part of the RSHP course, they did not condone the fact that she removed him from the entire course and advised her that this was contrary to Education Guidelines. In the circumstances, they were entitled to write to her and talk to her son about his absence from class. There was no evidence that he had been bullied or put under unreasonable pressure. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C accepted the council's offer to undertake insulation improvements on her property as they were undertaking such works on other properties in her street. She agreed subject to certain conditions that the council agreed to. When the works commenced Mrs C was dissatisfied with some of the contractor's actions and raised concerns and complaints with the council. She was given contact details of specific council officers whom she was told would respond to any concerns she had. When Mrs C used the contact details she found her contacts were not responded to or they were responded to by other council officers. She made further formal complaints about the actions of contractors and the council. When the works were completed Mrs C was dissatisfied that the pipework at her home had been replaced with differently coloured pipes. Mrs C complained to the council and remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of their complaints procedure.

We found that the council had failed to honour some of the agreements they had made with Mrs C, that some of the actions of the contractor's and the council's staff had been unreasonable, that council staff had unreasonably failed to respond to some of Mrs C's requests for contact and that they had not responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failures identified;
• remind relevant staff that, where renovation works to private dwellings are concerned, written agreements should be monitored and their fulfilment of those agreements recorded;
• remind relevant staff and contractors of the importance of not accessing property without notice; and
• make a goodwill payment of £150 to Mrs C in recognition of the failures identified.

Summary

Ms C, an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of Ms A, following the council's refusal of her application for a Community Care Grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. Ms C felt that the council had failed to properly consider the application, as the reasons for refusal given at each stage of the process were either very limited or absent.

On investigation, we found that the council had failed to follow Scottish Welfare Fund guidance in a number of areas. Their record of the decision-making process was limited, and fell short of what was required, and their decisions appeared to be based on a misquote or misinterpretation of the guidance. They had also failed to comply with the guidance on communicating accurate reasons for their decisions at each stage of the process, which affected Ms A's ability to effectively appeal their decisions. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms A for the failings identified in this investigation;
• provide a fast-tracked reconsideration of Ms A's application from the first stage, ensuring the guidance is followed; and
• provide training to relevant staff, including review panel members, on the contents of the guidance.

Summary

Mrs C said the council failed to repair potholes (in a lane she used to reach her work car park) by two dates they said they would get the work done. We found that the council's records said repair works took place by the first date, although Mrs C said she saw no sign of such works being carried out. The council's second response to Mrs C did not mention the repairs scheduled for completion around this date. The council acknowledged that they did not carry out repair works by the second date they gave to Mrs C and, given this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for failing to repair potholes in the lane by a date they previously stated; and
• provide us with a copy of their investigation into why the works to be completed by the second date were not instructed.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to deal properly with her claim to them for damage to her car, which she believed was due to a pothole. She also complained that they failed to deal with her subsequent complaint in line with their complaints process.

We found that the council had followed their claims process properly, apart from their failure to provide one piece of photographic evidence submitted with the claim to their claims handlers. This photograph was later provided and the council asked their claims handlers to reassess the claim. Having done so, they did not admit liability because the council had met their responsibilities in terms of roads inspections. However, as they had failed to pass the photograph on to their claims handlers, and as this resulted in an increase in the time taken to fully assess the claim, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended that the council review their procedures to ensure that all evidence is provided to claim handlers and, when photos cannot be accessed, they ask the claimant to provide copies in another format.

We found that, with the exception of a delay in acknowledging the complaint, the council dealt with the complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their claims procedure to ensure that all relevant evidence is provided to their claims handlers and, if photographic evidence cannot be accessed, that they revert to the claimant to obtain copies through other means.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that their landlord, the council, failed to take reasonable steps to carry out appropriate plumbing repairs to clear a blocked pipe in their property.

We found that there were a number of failings by the council who accepted that the blocked drain should have been treated as an emergency repair and dealt with within 24 hours. However, the council changed the repair category to 'urgent' which meant that it took several days for the blocked drain to be cleared. We considered that it was unsatisfactory that the council were unable to supply evidence of the reason the category had been changed. The council also failed to jet the drains although they claimed they had done so.

Mr and Mrs C had also made a claim to the council for a new cooker, as they said their cooker had suffered water damage, which was rejected by the council's claim handlers. The council accepted they had initially provided inaccurate information to their claims handlers but we were satisfied that the correct information was latterly supplied by the council and that Mr and Mrs C's claim was reassessed. However, we were unable to determine whether the damage to the cooker was caused by the blocked drain.

We found that the repair to the blocked drain was a qualifying repair under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 Right to Repair Scheme. In terms of the scheme, secure tenants have the right to compensation if certain repairs are not carried out by their landlord within a given timescale. As we considered the council failed to take reasonable steps to carry out the appropriate plumbing repairs within the required timescale, we found that Mr and Mrs C were entitled to receive compensation for the inconvenience caused. We made a number of recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failure to take reasonable steps to carry out appropriate plumbing repairs within their property;
• pay Mr and Mrs C compensation in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 Right to Repair Scheme;
• ensure that when a repair category is amended, the reasons for the change are recorded; and
• ensure the works are appropriately recorded when repairs are carried out.

Summary

Ms C complained about a kitchen upgrade and rewiring work at her property. She said the council did not communicate properly with her and were responsible for delays in carrying out the work. We did not find evidence that the council's communication was at fault. They met with Ms C in advance of the works and gave her a printed information leaflet explaining the tenant's responsibilities as well as the council's. Ms C said she was not able to be at the property on the morning work was due to start, so had left a key with her neighbour and had asked them to look out for the council.

There was evidence from the council's van tracking system that the workmen were on site at the time Ms C said she was told to expect them. After waiting for around 45 minutes, the work was called off. Ms C said nobody contacted her. The council said they did not have a mobile phone number for her. We concluded that a better arrangement would have been for Mrs C to tell the council she was leaving a key with her neighbour so that it could have been collected. Although this resulted in two days' delay, we concluded this was not the council's fault as work schedules of the different trades involved had to be rearranged. We found there was a further delay of three working days when water was found under the floor of Mrs C's home. Although this undoubtedly had an impact on Mrs C, we found it was not an unreasonable or excessive delay in the circumstances.

Ms C felt the council failed to acknowledge the disruption to her or provide her with assistance. We did not find evidence of this. The council's leaflet clearly acknowledged that the works were intrusive and disruptive, and Ms C received the disruption grant she was entitled to in accordance with the council's policy.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out a full and proper investigation into the complaint he raised about the provision of a service from the social work department. It was not clear to us why the council had failed to offer Mr C the opportunity to have his complaint considered through the social work complaints process and request a complaints review committee hearing (CRC). We sought legal advice which confirmed Mr C's entitlement to request a CRC. Having obtained this advice we approached the council who agreed with our interpretation of the regulations and agreed to allow Mr C to request a CRC. As this was the proper route to have his concerns explored, we advised Mr C of this step and closed our file.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the demolition of two sites close to his property. In particular, he was concerned that he had not received neighbour notification prior to the demolitions being carried out. He also complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his concerns about the two sites.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. During our investigation the council provided evidence of the action taken in relation to both sites which included instructing emergency action in relation to one of the sites under the terms of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. We found no evidence which required that neighbour notification should have been carried out prior to the demolitions carried out on both sites. Overall we were satisfied that that the council had taken reasonable action in response to the concerns raised about the two sites, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.