Local Government

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that she had been forced into a meeting at the end of the school day to discuss her daughter's homework, when she was anxious about collecting another of her children from a different school. She alleged that staff were intimidating and behaved unprofessionally. She also complained about how the school communicated with her. She was dissatisfied with the response she received and complained that her complaints had not been adequately and seriously addressed. Our investigation considered the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and the school, and the council's complaints handling procedure and records of investigation. We found that the council had inappropriately handled her complaint as a first stage in their procedure when more detailed investigation was required of the serious complaints made. There was no evidence that staff had behaved in the way Mrs C alleged and a second investigation addressed the points she had made more comprehensively. The council's final response identified some short-comings in communication and the timings of approach to Mrs C at the end of the school day and we upheld her complaint about how the council had dealt with her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not carrying out a full investigation when the complaint was initially made;
• remind staff of the importance of assessing complaints in terms of the appropriate stage at which they should be handled; and
• consider whether further staff training is required on the principles of good practice in complaints handling.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation about the overpayment to her of housing benefit, and unreasonably delayed in processing the change relating to the end of her childcare costs.

Following our investigation of Miss C's complaint, we found that she was entitled to a statutory right of appeal if she considered that the decision notices she received were incorrect, so we were unable to address whether the council's re-calculation of her benefit claims had been properly undertaken. However, we looked at her complaint to us about administrative fault and found that the council had responded appropriately to her concerns about how the overpayment arose, but upheld her complaint because the council's decision notices had not provided a reasonable explanation about the overpayment. The council had recognised she was not provided with a lot of detail, and told her that revision of the decision notice was under review. We were satisfied that the improvement planned would provide a satisfactory outcome to her complaint. However, we made recommendations for improvements in the process (inclusion in the final letter in the complaints procedure to the claimant's statutory right of appeal to a tribunal, and additional information in the planned revised decision notice to 'time' in the right to apply for a revision of the decision by the council or appeal).

We also upheld Miss C's complaint that there had been a period of delay in processing the change relating to the end of her child care costs. However, as the council had already recognised this and apologised to her, we considered that appropriate action had been taken to resolve Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider including a reminder within the final letter signposting a complainant to us about their right as a claimant to a statutory right of appeal if they think the council's decision on their benefit claim is wrong;
• share the outcome of this complaint with the relevant staff; and
• include a reference to time in the right to apply for a revision of the decision or appeal against it, in the information which will be made available in the council's revised notice.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that errors made in their planning procedures resulted in her loss of privacy when a boundary fence was not erected on the new development site next to her home as stated in the original plans and conditions. The council acknowledged the errors and waived the planning application fee so that Mrs C could raise the height of her own boundary wall. When she complained that she would be faced with the considerable cost of heightening her boundary to secure her privacy, the council had said they had done all they could and could not go back on a signed-off document. When we notified the council of our investigation, the council then referred Mrs C's case to their insurers and asked her to make a claim. With this attempt to consider financial redress, we closed our investigation.

Summary

When Mr C moved out of his property, into a larger council property, he was sent a bill for rechargeable repairs that needed to be carried out. Mr C complained that there had not been a pre-termination inspection which would have alerted him to any changes he had made to the property which the council were not satisfied with. Mr C also said he had offered to carry out the repairs himself, as he could not afford the estimated cost the council provided him with. When Mr C did receive the full invoice for the works, they were more than double the estimate previously provided and Mr C also complained about this.

During our investigation we found the reason no pre-termination inspection was carried out was because the council themselves had set a very tight deadline for Mr C to move into the new property, so that he would avoid paying two rents. We also found the council had not responded to Mr C's later offer to correct the work himself. For these reasons we upheld this complaint and recommended the council apologise to Mr C.

We also found the council were unable to specify exactly why Mr C's final bill was so much higher than originally estimated. While they provided general comments that it was difficult to predict exactly how each job would progress, we were not satisfied they could robustly explain what happened in Mr C's case. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address this.

During the investigation we also identified a number of administrative failings, including unreasonable delays, confusion over the appeals route and complaints procedure and made recommendations to address these aspects as well. In light of the failings, we also recommended the council cancel Mr C's invoice.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• cancel the outstanding invoice;
• reflect on the failings identified and how to prevent them occurring again;
• review the rechargeable repairs appeals procedure and ensure that it refers to us at the end of the process; and
• provide us with a copy of the standardised tool for estimating repair costs.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take steps to make her child feel safe at school following a meeting that had been arranged at the school to offer support to them both. Mrs C said that she had raised concerns at this meeting and an earlier meeting with a teacher that her child was being bullied. She said that she had asked that her child was monitored at break and lunchtime, but the council failed to put this in place.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mrs C had raised concerns about bullying at either of the meetings or that she had asked for her child to be monitored. Staff who attended the meetings said that they did not recall this being discussed and it was not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes referred to two action points that were to be taken forward, but these were not in relation to bullying. We found that the council had taken action to implement these two points after the meeting.

Summary

Mr C complained about development at a caravan park near his home. He complained that two lodges at the site did not meet the criteria to be treated as caravans and felt that these should have required planning permission. Mr C said that the council had failed to allow the planning system to run its course and had been negligent in not requiring a planning application for the earthworks for the lodges (they were located on a steep hillside). Mr C complained that the local plan for the area had not been taken into account and that the council had unreasonably included provision for 14 new stances at the site when granting a new site licence for the caravan park.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had determined that the lodges did not meet the definition of a caravan but that the decision on whether to take action was a discretionary matter. The council took the view that no planning purpose would be served by taking enforcement action and we received advice that this was a reasonable decision taken following due consideration. Similarly, we found that the council's decision to accept the earthworks at the site as permitted development to be reasonable. We received advice that as this was a decision that the council was entitled to make which they duly considered, it could only be challenged by judicial review. We found that there was nothing to suggest that the local plan had not been taken into consideration. Finally, we were advised that the inclusion of 14 new stances in the site licence fell within the planning scope established by a certificate of lawful use or development issued by the Scottish Government.