Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained to us following the Scottish Information Commissioner's decision that the council had complied with the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 in responding to her request for a breakdown of statutory notice costs: she said that the council had unreasonably failed to provide her with a satisfactory explanation about how the final accounts for repairs to a tenement (where she was an owner) had been calculated. Ms C also complained that the council had allowed additional works to be started before a statutory notice had been served.

From our investigation we did not uphold Ms C's complaint because we found that the information she had been provided with by the council followed their usual practice, and they had not, therefore, acted unreasonably. Further, the additional works had been the subject of an emergency notice, and the council had the power under the relevant legislation to issue such a notice after the works had commenced.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed or refused to answer reasonable enquiries he had made about repairs which were being undertaken on his property from statutory notices which had been served in 2008 and 2009. His partner (Ms C) had raised a complaint with them in 2011, and it had been closed without notification or an explanation. There had been other problems of poor communication by the council; works on two statutory notices had been completed, but he was not informed about this until 2014, and his query about an outstanding notice had not been answered. He was aggrieved because, despite what he considered had been very clear failings in addressing his concerns, the council had pressed him for payment when they issued the invoice, and threatened him with court proceedings if his payment was delayed.

From our investigation we found that Mr C had been wrongly informed that his complaint had been closed, because it had been considered by the independent panel set up by the council to consider complaints about statutory notices in 2013. We upheld this complaint. However, as the council had apologised to Mr C for their failings when they dealt with his complaint under their complaints process, and confirmed that they had taken action to improve their customer service, we did not make a recommendation about this.

Mr C had also complained that the council did not reply to his complaint about the failure to provide him with temporary heating during the works. We found no evidence that Mr C had been promised temporary heating. However, the matter had been raised by his partner with the council in 2011, and the council accepted this had not been dealt with. We upheld the complaint but were satisfied that the apology which had been given to Mr C was an appropriate resolution.

We upheld both of Mr C's complaints about the unreasonable failure to explain why the project had been suspended in 2011, and unreasonable delay to tell him that the works on two of the statutory notices had been completed in 2010. We recommended that the council should apologise to Mr C for their shortcomings. However, we did not consider that the failure we had identified was sufficient reason to recommend a reduction or the cancellation of the council's administrative fee, which was part of what Mr C sought in making a complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C and Ms C for the failure of both the council and the contract administrator to provide clarity about their respective roles and the suspension of the projects; and
• apologise to Mr C and Ms C for the failure to communicate with them about the status of the statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the contract of repairs undertaken under statutory notices served by the council on the tenement property where he stayed. He considered it inappropriate that, after independent review of the project, the council were still proposing to charge a 15 percent administration fee. He also complained about the council's failure to offer him an apology for the inconvenience and stress which had been caused to him by delay.

In response to our enquiry, the council said they had a legal entitlement to recover the administrative fee, and this had been reduced in line with the reduction to the final account. They explained that the company who undertook the independent review had, in some cases, made recommendations to partially or fully waive the council's administrative fee, but had not done so in this instance. Taking this advice into account in our consideration, we concluded that there were no grounds to pursue this issue further.

However, when we looked at the time-frame since the project commenced to completion of the works (further works were undertaken following review), we found that although the council had apologised where there had been poor communication and delay in responding to Mr C, the process had been extremely long to complete, and that it had been a stressful situation. We recommended to the council that they write to Mr C apologising for the stress and inconvenience he had suffered due to the delay in completing the repair works.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the stress and inconvenience he has experienced due to the delay of four years to complete the repair works.

Summary

Ms C was unhappy with the works that were carried out in her home in response to the high levels of damp and mould throughout. It was agreed with Ms C and the council for remedial works to be carried out and a dehumidifier installed with the running costs reimbursed. We closed the file and took no further action.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his son (Mr A). Mr C was in dispute with the council about the level of support offered to his son, who is dyslexic, during his physics national 5 examination. Mr C said that the support was inadequate and did not assist Mr A and allow him to perform at the best of his ability. The council maintained that the support plan made and agreed for Mr A, informed by a psychological/educational report and Mr A's teachers, was fulfilled.

The complaint was investigated and all the complaints correspondence and Mr A's support plan was given careful consideration. This showed that Mr A was to be provided with the use of a laptop, digital question papers and extra time and that these were available to him for use in his physics examination. However, Mr A had declined to use them. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of Miss A and Mr A, about the handling of a planning application and building certificates for a development close to their home. They said that the new house had tapped into their shared water supply pipe, and was causing a significant loss of water pressure and flow. They complained that the council should not have allowed this to happen, saying that it should have been evident through the planning and building standards procedures that water supply would be a significant issue.

We took independent advice from one of our advisers on the requirements of planning and building standards in relation to water supply. Our adviser said that the planning process includes a consultation with Scottish Water, which had been undertaken. However, he said that the provision of water to a site was not a material issue in a planning decision, and that the consultation was a way to advise the developer of issues that might arise during the development process. He also said that building standards work to a set of regulations. These do not make any specific requirements about water provision for a development, other than in relation to access to water for fire-fighting, and requirements about lead piping. The developer is expected to consult with Scottish Water before applying for a building warrant, but again, this is on an advisory basis.

We did not uphold the complaints, as we found that the council had taken appropriate account of water supply to the new development in their decisions within the planning and building standards procedures. We noted that accessing water from the shared supply pipe may be a civil, legal matter, and was not something over which the council had any control.

Summary

Mrs A moved to a different council property because her previous property was due to be demolished. When she began redecorating, she found that the living room and bedroom walls were damp. Various inspector visits took place but Mrs A was not satisfied that reasonable repairs had taken place and she complained to the council. The council admitted fault and refunded most, but not all, the rent Mrs A had paid. Mrs A remained unhappy about the condition of her property and the rent situation, and Mr C complained to us on Mrs A's behalf.

We concluded that Mrs A's property had not been watertight when it was let to her, and that there had been an unreasonable delay by the council in repairing the roof. We also considered that the council could have more clearly explained to Mrs A why she was not entitled to a full refund of rent, and we recommended an apology and a goodwill payment to recognise that the repair work should have been done quicker. We did not uphold Mrs A's complaint about the council's refusal to undertake a comprehensive programme of works at her property.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• acknowledge and apologise to Mrs A for allocating her a property which was not watertight, and for the stress she experienced due to this; and
• make a payment of redress to Mrs A of the equivalent of two months' rent.

Summary

The council had authorised entry to their contractor to a site adjacent to Mr C's street via his street, which is an unadopted road. Mr C complained to the council that they had failed to ensure that the street was returned to the condition it was in before the council required access, and also that they had failed to provide him with consistent advice about their responsibility to repair the damage. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to reply to his complaint.

Following our investigation, we found evidence that the council were satisfied with the works which had been undertaken by their contractor. As there was no evidence of fault in the way the council handled the matter, we did not uphold his complaint about this. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had given inconsistent advice about their responsibility to repair any damage as it was evident that he had agreed to the works which the contractor would undertake, and although he was not satisfied with what was undertaken, and that his claim to the council was rejected, he had been given advice of his right of recourse to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland or the courts.

However, we found that there had been an unreasonable failure to reply to Mr C's complaint and so we upheld this, making recommendations of apology and a refresher to council staff about the council's complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to acknowledge receipt of his complaint form, submitted in November 2013, and failure to respond to it;
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to respond to his complaint in line with their complaints procedure;
• apologise to Mr C for sending him an unsigned letter; and
• run staff training for the services involved in this complaint about how to handle complaints under their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C is the landlord of several properties which he lets. He said that over the years he has received council tax bills for the full charge even although the properties were empty and he was due a ten percent exemption. He complained that the council were implementing a policy whereby they automatically billed for a full charge and that they failed to make any appropriate enquiries about the status of the property concerned.

Further enquiries were made of the council and the complaint was investigated. This showed that current legislation allowed that in circumstances like those of Mr C, the council should make a ten percent reduction but that in his case, because of human error, this had not happened. The situation was one of carelessness, rather than of a lack of understanding of the legislation. There was no policy to automatically bill the full charge but because of the error, we upheld Mr C's complaint. As a result of Mr C's complaint, the council have emphasised to staff what they should be doing in relation to unoccupied properties between lets and they have undertaken a three month check to ensure that this policy is followed. They are also in discussion with their software supplier in attempt to remove human error.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• advise us of the outcome of their check and, in the event of a continued failure, of the further action they intend to take; and
• inform us of the outcome of their discussions with their software supplier.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's social work service's decision to create a child protection plan in relation to his partner's child's welfare. Mr C was dissatisfied with how the case conference was conducted. We initially engaged with the council to establish the reason why Mr C had not been offered a right to request a social work complaints review committee, but the council said that their handling of the complaint was in line with their complaints procedure.

Mr C complained that he had been told he could not submit a report to the case conference, but we found nothing to suggest that Mr C had been given such advice, or that he had a right to submit a report. Although we did not uphold this complaint, we were concerned that the council had agreed to Mr C's request to amend the minute to record that he had not submitted a report, but the minute of the case conference included a reference to him doing so. We recommended to the council that they should consider whether the minute needed to be amended to correct this reference, and to apologise to Mr C if it was found there had been a failure to make the correction earlier.

We found Mr C's complaint that he had not been allowed to speak freely at the case conference was not backed by the evidence in the minute of the number of times he had spoken and did not uphold this complaint. Further, we found no evidence to justify Mr C's complaint about the council's failure to provide him with a satisfactory response when he said that there had been incorrect compilation and reporting of information about him in the minute of the case conference, and did not uphold it.

With regard to the council not dealing with his complaint under the final stages of the social work complaints procedure (a complaints review committee), we considered the council's interpretation of Mr C's complaint was too narrow and did not fully reflect that someone complaining about the withholding or withdrawal of a service might, in the course of making that complaint, complain about staff. However, as the decision whether or not to hold a complaints review committee was a matter for the council to take, and we had seen no evidence of maladministration in the handling of Mr C's other complaints, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider an amendment or addendum to the minute of the meeting of the initial child protection case conference, if it is necessary to correct the reference to Mr C's views also being provided in a written report; and
• apologise for the failure to correct the minute of the initial child protection case conference if an amendment or addendum to the minute is made.