Local Government

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.

Summary

Mrs C's son (Mr A) went to a school that was not in the council's area. Mr A attended the school seven days a week, coming home only at the end of term. Mrs C wanted the council to pay for transport costs for visits during term time. The council would only pay costs to take Mr A to school at the start of term, and return him home at the end of term. Mrs C complained to us that it was unreasonable of the council to pay only these transport costs, that the council did not include her or Mr A when making the decision, and that the council failed to keep records about the decision. Mrs C was also unhappy with the council's response to her complaint.

It is clear that the situation was very difficult for Mr A and Mrs C. However, we had to explain to Mrs C that complaining to us was not a route to appeal the council's decision. Instead, our role was to determine whether the council acted in line with relevant policy and procedure.

We looked at the council's policy and found that they had discretion to pay costs they determined were appropriate. Although Mrs C disagreed with the council's decision, there was no evidence that they had acted outwith their policy. We considered that the council's communication with Mrs C could have been better. However, there was no requirement for the council to include Mrs C and Mr A in the decision-making process. We also found that the council had investigated Mrs C's complaint thoroughly and provided a reasonable response. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

The council were aware that, other than letters to Mrs C about their decision on transport costs, there were no records. The council acknowledged that it was best practice to keep records, and they were looking into how they could do this from now on. We concluded that it was good practice to keep records, for example, making even a brief file note of important conversations which relate to the decision-making process. This would ensure there was an audit trail of how and why important decisions were made. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with a copy of their consideration of, and plan for, record-keeping.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that the conditions of a planning application had not been fulfilled. She remained unhappy at the conclusion of the complaints procedure and brought her complaints to us. We thought that it may have been possible to resolve the matter but our attempts did not result in this. Mrs C then did not respond to our efforts to contact her, and we decided that we would not consider the matter further.

Summary

A developer had demolished a farm steading and begun construction of a new building without getting planning permission. The council served stop and enforcement notices on the developer that required the building works to be stopped, the foundations of the new building to be removed and the steading reconstructed. Some years later, the developer applied for permission to construct a new building on the site and the council granted consent.

Mrs C, a neighbouring property owner, complained that the council had failed to follow through on the original enforcement notice requiring the removal of the foundations and rebuilding of the steading. She said they had unreasonably used the fact that there were existing, though unapproved, foundations as justification for granting consent on the new building. She also raised concerns about the omission of details about the enforcement notice on the planning officer's report, their failure to take into account her concerns about the local water supply, and their failure to deal adequately with her complaint.

We found that the council had acted reasonably, and within their discretion, when taking enforcement action against the developer. We did note that the enforcement notice was inappropriately worded and required works to be carried out which, if enforced, would have effectively granted consent for a new building in an area which, at that time, was against the terms of the local development plan. We noted that the local development plan had changed since then and now allowed for new development in the countryside, and that this was the reason the new application was granted. We also found that the council had taken into account Mrs C's concerns about water supply and had placed conditions on the planning consent requiring that her supply be unaffected by the new development. We did not uphold these elements of her complaint. However, we noted that it would have been good practice for the planning officer's report to have included details of the enforcement notice in the site history section, and we noted some inaccuracies and delays in the council's responses to the complaint. We upheld these elements of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the importance of preparing clear and enforceable notices;
• review this case to identify why the existence of the enforcement notice was not included in the planning report and whether there were any procedural reasons for this omission; and
• remind staff of the importance of accurately addressing complaints and dealing with correspondence in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary

A window at Mr C's property was damaged. The council made a repair that was not effective and it was not until some weeks later that they fixed the problem. Mr C complained and the council told him the initial repair had been effective. He remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We found there was evidence to suggest that the repair had not been effective and that, if it had been, it would be reasonable to expect the council to hold evidence that showed this. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failures identified;
• remind appropriate staff to check that responses to complaints make reference to all council actions relevant to the subject of complaint;
• remind appropriate staff that correspondence indicating that the complaints process has been completed should not be provided to complainants while investigations are still on-going; and
• provide Mr C with a goodwill payment equivalent to four weeks of his rent in recognition of the inconvenience he suffered due to their not providing an effective repair to windows at his property within a reasonable timescale.