Local Government

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.

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.