Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with flooding risk to her croft and an adjacent new development. She said that a developer came onto the croft without permission, and upgraded a pipe (which drained his field into their drainage system) with a larger size pipe. The developer then applied for permission for a new development, including a surface water drain using the new pipe. Mrs C objected to the application on the basis that the drain would not be able to cope with the volume of water from the development. The council's road services agreed, and the developer amended the application. The council approved the amended application, although Mrs C still thought the system would not be effective.

After the development started, the site flooded several times. Mrs C reported this to the council, who negotiated with the developer. It was agreed that the council would carry out works to reduce the upstream catchment area, and the developer would undertake further remedial works if a flooding problem remained. The council carried out their works, and the developer undertook some works to protect the new development, including taking steps to divert overland water onto Mrs C's croft, and deepening the drainage ditch on her land (without permission). However, the croft and development site flooded again a few years later. Although the council asked the developer to carry out remedial works as agreed, they refused. The council then said that they were not able to enforce the agreement with the developer, and suggested that Mrs C pay to upgrade the drainage system if she was concerned about flooding.

After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We found that the council had dealt with the original application in line with planning requirements, and the issue of the developer working on Mrs C's land was a private matter between them. We also found that the council had acted within their powers to manage flood risk in undertaking remedial works. The adviser was concerned that the council were not clearer about their role (for example, when they negotiated an agreement with the developer, Mrs C thought she could rely on this). However, we found no evidence that the council failed to comply with policies or the relevant requirements.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council were incorrectly pursuing her for payment of council tax arrears for a period after she had vacated her rented flat. Ms C said that she had paid the council tax demand she had received from the council, and when she notified them she was moving out two months before the lease ended, she was told her account had been closed. Subsequently, she had received council tax demands for sums due before she left, and until the formal end of her lease. The council had admitted to her that they had made mistakes with her council tax account. However, Ms C told us that they had not satisfactorily explained to her why they had told her that her account would be closed when she vacated the flat, had then made further demands, and then continued to send her demands for different amounts.

We upheld Ms C's complaint because it was clear not only that she had been given incorrect advice at the outset that her account would close when she vacated the flat, but there had been a catalogue of errors following on from this in the handling of her council tax liability. The council had recognised that their service to her was poor when they responded to her formal complaints, and apologised. However, we considered that more could be done to resolve Ms C's complaint because the council had failed to provide her with demands for payment which showed that they had correctly calculated both what she had paid into her account, and what she owed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a time and trouble payment to Ms C; and
• review Ms C's council tax liability and payments record and provide fresh billing notifications, with a covering letter explaining any changes made.

Summary

Miss C complained about the final account issued by the council for statutory repair works which had been undertaken on a flat she owned in Edinburgh. The project had been the subject of independent review, and further works had been undertaken (for which she had not been charged). There had been an overall reduction in the bill. However, Miss C complained to us about the council's 15 percent administration fee, because she considered this was inappropriate on top of the amount assessed by the independent review. She also complained about the tone of the council's response to her returning the discharge form with agreement to paying her share of the works minus the administration fee.

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 that 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, we did not uphold the complaint. Miss C had also asked for the reimbursement of her share of the cost of expenses incurred by the owners for professional services, but as this had also been considered as part of the review and a decision taken not to pay, we considered we had no grounds to challenge this.

We did uphold Miss C's complaint about the tone of the council's letter, and noted from our enquiry to the council that they accepted that her complaint was justified and were addressing the concerns which had been raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the tone of the letter sent to her by the council.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to allow changes to a planning application for a house in the local conservation area by considering them as a non-material variation. Mr C was concerned that this meant that residents did not have the right to object to the development. In addition, he was concerned that the council had failed to take into account relevant policies when granting permission for the felling of three trees on the site.

We found that the changes to the original design actually reduced the size of the proposals and meant that the impact on the area of the new build would be less, under the new proposals, than it would have been under the original application. We considered that the planning officer's decision to consider this as a non-material variation, rather than requiring a new application, was reasonable. We also noted the council's reasons for allowing the removal of the trees and noted that they would be replaced with native varieties. As these were both discretionary decisions of the council, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council reached their decision, we did not uphold these complaints.

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.