Local Government

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's handling of repairs to the communal roof of her building. She had made complaints over a number of years about the problem of water penetration of the roof. Miss C said that previous roof repairs had not been successful and further repairs carried out in March 2014 were the subject of her complaint.

Miss C said that despite the March 2014 repairs being carried out, the roof was still leaking, and that this was having a detrimental effect on her family's health. The council accepted that there had been occasions when the work could have been arranged in a more efficient manner and as a consequence avoided some of the delays that were experienced. However, they explained that, as they use the services of an external scaffolding contractor, this can be a time consuming process.

The council carried out a further inspection in November 2014 and further work was carried out. The council indicated that they were satisfied that the roof was watertight. We were satisfied that the council's response to the complaints of water ingress was reasonable and, accordingly, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C and her partner had complained to the council about alleged anti-social behaviour by one of their neighbours. Miss C complained about the way her complaints were handled by the council and, in particular, that the council had failed to follow their policies and procedures in dealing with the complaints made about her neighbour.

Our investigation found that Miss C and her partner had first raised their concerns about their neighbour during 2011 and that the council contacted them at that time detailing the action taken by them. In line with the council's anti-social behaviour procedure, this included mediation. Miss C and her partner continued to report incidents to the council during 2012 and 2013, and the evidence showed that the council contacted them and provided advice. However, it was clear that, in some instances, Miss C and her partner were not contacted until some time after the incident was reported. There was also a lack of records detailing the action recorded as being taken by the council.

The council explained that, in this case, they had received complaints from Miss C and her partner, but also counter-complaints from their neighbour. The council confirmed that there was no evidence of anti-social behaviour which would justify intervention by them against Miss C's neighbour. They suggested, and continued to suggest, mediation to try to resolve the problems.

While we found that there were shortcomings in the council's handling of the matter in relation to record-keeping we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council took action on the incidents reported and provided appropriate advice. In these circumstances we did not uphold the complaint, but we did make a recommendation about record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the importance of keeping comprehensive records of the action taken during the investigation of a complaint about alleged anti-social behaviour.

Summary

Mrs C complained about a mental health assessment of her late son, which was conducted by a mental health officer (MHO) employed by the council.

When we investigated Mrs C's complaint, we found that, although the MHO was employed by the council, at the time of the events, they acted as part of an NHS community mental health team. The council and NHS board agreed that, in this case, the NHS was responsible for the actions subject to the complaint, and we closed the complaint about the council and considered the NHS board's involvement as a separate case.

Summary

Mr C complained that his child had been bullied at school and that the response from the school and the council had been inadequate and inappropriate. Mr C said they had regularly reported incidents of bullying to the school but these had not been properly recorded. When they complained to the headteacher, Mr C said that their concerns were dismissed, and a subsequent investigation by the council's head of education had contained significant factual errors, which the council had failed to acknowledge or apologise for.

The council maintained there was no evidence that bullying had taken place. They said Mr C had insisted on the exclusion of the pupils he considered responsible for bullying and that he was not prepared to accept any other outcome. They acknowledged there had been errors in the head of education's investigation, but suggested that the conclusions this investigation had reached remained sound.

Our investigation found that the council were unable to supply adequate or accurate records. The investigation findings and complaint response from the council were not supported by the evidence available. The council also could not explain why statements had been made about what Mr C had insisted on as a resolution (exclusion of pupils) when these were not backed up by documentary evidence. It was noted, however, that the flaws in the investigation were due to a failure to follow the council's relevant policies and procedures (bullying and complaints handling) rather than evidence of systemic failings within the council's policies and procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence that staff at the school have been reminded of the importance of adhering to the appropriate guidance when investigating allegations of bullying;
• provide evidence that the bullying prevention assessment tool has been completed for the school in question; and
• apologise unreservedly to Mr C and his family for the failures identified in this investigation.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council had failed to take reasonable action in response to their concerns about flooding at properties that belonged to their son and daughter. They said that the council had failed to meet their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.

The council had assessed the risk of flooding in the relevant area and had issued two options to property owners to resolve the matter. They considered that one of these would cost more than the other and told residents that if that option was chosen, they would require the properties benefitting from this work to come to an agreement to share the additional cost beyond the cost of the cheaper option. The residents failed to reach an agreement and, consequently, no work was carried out.

The council have discretion in relation to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Under our legislation, we can check that a council has followed the correct process. However, if the decision was made properly, we cannot question or change it. We found that the council had delayed in dealing with some of Mr and Mrs C's correspondence. Although we said that these delays were unacceptable, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this and had taken steps to try to prevent problems of a similar nature occurring. The council had also tried to resolve the matter by presenting two options to residents and we found that this was reasonable. We considered that the council had acted reasonably in relation to their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for work carried out that was not in the statutory notice (where the council arrange for work to be done and then recoup the cost from the property owners) that they had issued to him and his neighbours. The statutory notice referred to the repair of defective stair treads. However, the contractors appointed by the council to carry out the works resurfaced the whole stairwell and landing. The council then billed Mr C and his neighbours for this. Mr C had raised this with the council when the contractors arrived to carry out the work, but the council failed to respond to him at that time.

We found that the council should have informed property owners of the additional flooring work exceeding the work referred to in the statutory notice. We said that the council should only charge Mr C for the work carried out under the statutory notice, particularly as he had raised the matter with the council on the day that the contractors arrived, but had not received a response. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints. There had initially been significant delays by the council in responding to Mr C's complaint. The council had then carried out a review, but this only considered Mr C's complaint about the quality of the work by the contractors. The council failed to consider Mr C's complaint about the additional work that was carried out that was not in the statutory notice. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• amend Mr C's outstanding bill so that he is only charged for the cost of repairing twelve defective stair treads, rather than the resurfacing of the landings and the whole stairwell;
• issue a written apology to him for the failure to adequately deal with his complaints; and
• make the staff involved in the handling of his complaint aware of our decision on the matter.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. He said Mr A's flat had not been redecorated as promised whilst Mr A was staying in temporary accomodation. Work on his kitchen had not been completed, and a damp problem within the bathroom had not been completely rectified. Mr C also said Mr A felt the investigation into his complaint had been partial and had unfairly discounted his version of events.

Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged that Mr A's kitchen work and bathroom work had not been completed, and we upheld these complaints. The council had apologised and proposed an appropriate solution. Mr A had, however, subsequently moved tenancy and so we made no further recommendations. We found the council's investigation into Mr A's complaint had been conducted in line with their complaints handling policy and that there was insufficient evidence to uphold this complaint against the council.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to properly investigate when she complained to them that she had been knocked off her bicycle by a council employee who opened his van door directly into her path. She complained that the driver did not stop to make sure she was unhurt. She said he said that she should have rung her bell and he then left in his van. She also complained to our office about the significant length of time it had taken the council to respond to her complaint. The council eventually wrote to Miss C to advise that they were unable to trace the van or driver from the details Miss C had provided and could not, therefore, accept any liability for the incident.

Although the issue of liability in an accident like this can only be determined by the courts, we did look into the background of the case in order to establish whether or not the council's investigations into the incident were reasonable, and whether they had dealt with Miss C's complaint appropriately.

We found that the council did conduct an investigation to identify the van and driver involved but, on the basis of the limited information provided by Miss C, they were unable to identify the vehicle or driver. We found their investigations to be reasonable. However, we noted that the council initially failed completely to respond to Miss C's complaint and, when they did contact her, this was through the claims process rather than the complaints process. We noted that the council did not respond to the questions Miss C raised in her complaint even after prompting by our office. It was not until we had begun our investigation that the council finally wrote to Miss C to answer her questions and to provide information about how to complain to our office. As a result of these failings, and the significant delay in responding to her complaint (around 15 months), we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended to the council that they review their procedures, in light of our findings, in order to ensure that complaints are directed to the relevant team for response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the process they follow, in light of the circumstances of this case, when identifying and acknowledging complaints to ensure that in future, complaints such as these are passed to the appropriate service for response in line with their complaints procedure, and let us know when this review is complete.

Summary

Mrs C told us that when she and her son (Mr A) moved onto a caravan site they were told by the site owner it was an all-year-round residential site. They later found out that there was a site licence condition which limited residency to eight months per year. Mrs C and Mr A said that when they went to register to pay council tax, the council should have alerted them to the licence condition. We accepted the council's position, which was that the site licence condition was not of significance in relation to council tax liability. Officers responsible for council tax only had to establish whether the caravan was occupied as Mrs C and Mr A's main or only residence. The council said, and we agreed, that the terms of Mrs C and Mr A's lease or rental agreement was a matter between them and the site owner.

Mrs A and Mr C said a council officer came on site without good reason and discussed their private business within hearing distance of other people. We found that the council officer did not show his identification when he went on site and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. The council had already apologised for this. Mr A refused to speak to the council officer. Mrs C and Mr A said that there was no need for the council's visit as they had already been to the council office to tell the council that they were moving and where they were going to. The council confirmed the visit but said Mrs C and Mr A did not provide a forwarding address. We found that the council were entitled to visit the site either to check the information they were given or to get further details. In this case they needed a forwarding address and to confirm a leaving date so they could end the council tax liability. We found, on balance, that there was not enough evidence to confidently say whether Mr A's private business had been discussed in front of other people and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council officer unreasonably barred his entry into a public event that was being held in a council facility. He also complained that the officer's behaviour at the time was inappropriate. He then complained to the council about this incident but was dissatisfied with their investigation and response. He said that they had not explained the complaints process to him, and they had not interviewed the only independent witness to these events.

We considered the investigation carried out by the council and noted that they had given Mr C information about the complaints process and asked for contact details for his witness by email. We noted, however, that one of these emails was returned undelivered as the email address, despite being correct, was not recognised. We were satisfied that they had properly investigated his complaint and asked for the witness's details, which Mr C had not originally provided. We also noted that council staff were entitled to take action where they consider that their staff are likely to be subjected to unacceptable behaviour by a member of the public, and that this complied with the council's unacceptable actions policy and their policy on dignity and respect in the workplace. We found no additional evidence to support Mr C's claim that staff had behaved inappropriately when barring him from the event. For these reasons, we did not uphold his complaint. However, we did recommend that, for the sake of completeness, the council now contact his witness to see whether his recollection of events would affect their decision on Mr C's complaint. We also recommended that they ensure that all incidents of unacceptable behaviour by members of the public are properly recorded in line with their own procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• phone Mr C's witness to discuss his recollection of the incident and consider whether his testimony would alter their decision on Mr C's case; and
• ensure that all incidents of unacceptable behaviour towards staff, in council offices or outwith the workplace, are recorded appropriately and in line with their unacceptable actions policy and their policy on dignity and respect in the workplace.