Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son (Mr A) about recharges made for alterations and damage to a property when the tenancy ended.

Mr and Mrs C had jointly signed the original tenancy agreement with the council in 1989. In 2008 they took on the care of a severely disabled foster child on behalf of the council, but had to move to a suitably adapted property. The tenancy agreement of the property they had lived in with Mr A was assigned from Mr and Mrs C to the joint names of Mr C and Mr A; the tenancy agreement was assigned again in 2009 solely to Mr A. The council deemed the property had been abandoned by Mr A in 2013 and levied recharges for various items, including the reinstatement of kitchen and bathroom fittings which had been put in by Mr and Mrs C prior to 2008.

The council said that as the tenancy had been assigned to Mr A, he automatically became responsible for any damage caused. The tenancy agreement signed in 1989 stated that any damage caused by fault or neglect of tenants had to be either put right or the council would charge for doing so. In relation to alterations, the tenancy agreement stated that these had to have prior approval from the council, but did not make it clear what the consequences would be of not getting approval. The current tenancy agreement in use by the council states that unauthorised alterations should be removed, or the council would charge for doing so.

Our investigation found that the tenancy agreement signed in 1989 did not make it clear that the council would regard unauthorised alterations as damage liable to recharge. We also found that opportunities had been missed in 2008 and 2009 to make Mr and Mrs C aware that the alterations they had made would be rechargeable; and to give Mr A the opportunity to say that he accepted the property, with the alterations, in 2009.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review its assignation documentation to ensure that, for the future, it is made clear to tenants that all of the conditions of the original tenancy agreement still refer and, if necessary, is updated to the current version;
• reconsider the recharges made for replacing the kitchen, bathroom and wood panelling;
• review its procedures for assignations of tenancy agreements to ensure that all parties are made aware of, and/or reminded about, the requirement to remove improvements made and/or restore properties to a lettable standard; and
• issue a written apology to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified during this investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to take action on his request for remedial gardening works. He said that he told the council that an area close to his home was in need of works. He said that the council agreed, and advised him that works would take place. He said that he noticed this had not happened and approached the council for an explanation. Mr C said the council responded to say that weeding would only be done once a year and referred him to the complaints section of their website. Mr C added that when he tried to query this with the council they terminated his phone call saying they had no further comment.

We found that the council had advised Mr C that a few areas of improvement would be carried out over the coming weeks but that when Mr C queried this they then said this work is only done once a year. The council were unable to provide us with any evidence that the works had been carried out. We also found their refusal to comment on Mr C's questions to be unreasonable, so we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a letter of apology to Mr C for failing to carry out the promised remedial work;
• issue a letter of apology to Mr C for failing to deal appropriately with his enquiry/complaint about remedial work;
• share the outcome of this letter with the relevant complaints handling staff; and
• take steps to ensure that maintenance work that is agreed to is recorded appropriately and that once the work is complete, this too is recorded and dated on worksheets as appropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained about a complaints review committee (CRC) hearing, which considered his complaint about the actions of social work services in relation to the care of his elderly mother.

Mr C complained that the CRC did not warn him before the proceedings that they would only consider those parts of his complaint that he raised in oral argument, that he was not given an opportunity to call council officers as witnesses, that his complaint was not summarised by the CRC chair as required by the council's procedures, that the CRC was biased towards the council, that the CRC unreasonably prevented him from presenting additional evidence, that the CRC did not seek an independent expert opinion on the complex technical issues involved, and that the CRC's decision notice failed to include relevant representations made by the council. Mr C also raised concerns that the council did not properly follow their procedure when reporting the CRC's findings to their Health and Care Committee, because they did not include Mr C's comments (as required by the procedure).

After investigating Mr C's concerns, we found that the CRC did not follow some parts of the procedure set out in the council's policy. The council explained that this happened because the policy was not consistent with the procedural guidance used in the hearing. We upheld two of Mr C's eight complaints and recommended that the council apologise to him and review their policies and procedures on CRCs to ensure consistency.

In relation to Mr C's other complaints, we found no evidence that the CRC had otherwise failed to follow its own procedures, that it was biased, or that Mr C was prevented from presenting evidence at the hearing or calling any witnesses he wished. We also found it reasonable that the CRC did not seek independent expert opinion on the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• demonstrate to us that the discrepancies between the complaints handling procedure and their Note of Procedure have now been addressed;
• take steps to ensure that discrepancies do not arise in future between the different guidance documents relevant to CRCs;
• provide us with evidence that the discrepancies between the complaints handling procedure and the Scottish Government guidance and directions have now been addressed; and
• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings our investigation found.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C sold their property but established that a part of an extension to the property was built on land not under their ownership. They approached the council with a request to purchase the land as they thought that the land may be common good land. Their solicitors advised the council that this matter was urgent as the sale of the property had already gone through. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that there was then a delay of a few months before the council determined that the land was not in common good ownership.

In responding to the complaint, the council advised that they were told by Mr and Mrs C's solicitor that this was common good land and, in order to speed up the sale, they immediately sought approval, through the appropriate procedure, to obtain councillors' agreement to the sale. Once this was obtained, and a price negotiated, and agreed, with Mr and Mrs C's solicitor, the council then asked their solicitor to conclude the sale. At this stage, the council's solicitor established that the land was not common good and Mr and Mrs C's solicitor was provided with information of the current owners. Although the council accepted that, in hindsight, they could have identified the ownership earlier, they said that they were asked to arrange the sale of land which was held in the common good and they did so. They were also of the view that it was for Mr and Mrs C to establish title of their property before proceeding with a sale.

We considered the evidence. This clearly showed that Mr and Mrs C's solicitor was of the view that this was common good land and that they did not approach the council for clarification of title, they asked to buy the land. As responsibility for clarifying title rests with Mr and Mrs C's solicitor, and as we found no evidence of administrative failing in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to maintain their promise to ensure that the glass waste from the bins outside her property was collected as scheduled. When we asked them for information, the council took the opportunity to review the complaint and told us that they were sorry for their failure to sustain the level of service that Ms C was entitled to receive, and apologised for their shortcomings. They recognised that the short-term resolutions they had previously put in place for Ms C had not resolved the matter, and told us what they were doing to ensure a resolution.

We upheld Ms C's complaint as we found that the council had been at fault, but we were satisfied with the action they proposed. Although we made no recommendations as they had already taken action on Ms C's concerns, we did suggest that they write again, apologising for the failure in customer service.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to act on her reports of repairs required to her home. During our investigation, we found that there had been a breakdown in communication which had resulted in repairs she had reported not being attended to. The council apologised sincerely to Ms C and made arrangements to carry out all the outstanding matters. Ms C confirmed to us that the council were taking action to resolve her complaint.

Summary

The property where Mrs C lives was subject to a statutory repairs notice which meant that the council did the works by default and then recouped the cost (plus an administration fee) from the owners. Mrs C complained about the final costs of the works and said that the owners had not been kept informed or up to date about increasing costs.

We found that, upon starting work as required by the notice, the extent of damage caused by vegetation was greater than first considered (affecting the gable as well as the chimney stack of the property). While Mrs C was alerted to the fact that this would lead to an increase in costs, she was not given details of the costs incurred nor reasons why the council thought it was appropriate to continue with the works under the existing notice rather than issuing another. Accordingly, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mrs C with a full explanation for the reasons why further works (and associate costs) were required and why it was not considered necessary to issue a further statutory notice; and
• make a full formal apology for the failures in this matter and add weight to the apology by considering waiving the administrative costs associated with the works.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's handling of statutory repairs notices that had been served on their property. They complained that the council had failed to follow their own internal processes when awarding the contract for the statutory repairs, and to follow their procedures for checking that the work carried out was correctly invoiced. Mr and Mrs C said that the final account included items that had not been completed, unnecessary work, duplicate items and items not related to any statutory notice. Finally, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response to their complaint about the issue of an emergency notice.

During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had responded to Mr and Mrs C's concerns and had explained that they were satisfied that the tendering process was in line with approved procurement procedures. We also found that they had fully considered Mr and Mrs C's concerns about the final account. Having thoroughly investigated the works carried out, they were satisfied that the project was competitively tendered, the costs were reasonable and the statutory notices were issued appropriately.

Finally, we found that, based on the available evidence, the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations about the issue of a statutory notice. In particular, they had explained that the decision to issue this was based on the professional judgement of the surveyor at the time of issue in 2008.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the processing of a planning application. Mr C complained that the council had not considered all the relevant material considerations and had not conducted the Regulatory Planning Hearing in line with procedure.

We sought independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered all the relevant material considerations and listed these in the officer's report and discussed them at the planning hearing. Our adviser was also satisfied the planning hearing had been conducted in line with procedure. In light of the advice received, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's regulatory panel had granted planning consent for a radio mast in the garden of a neighbour despite having been given photographic evidence of the site which was out-of-date. Since the original photographs of the site were taken by planning officers a number of trees had been felled which Mr C said altered the screening of the site. Mr C was of the view that the council should have taken new photographs after the felling had taken place and should also have issued a new and updated report of handling to objectors to the development.

In responding to the complaint the council said that the regulatory panel was fully aware of the felling that had taken place as the son of the applicant had informed them of the changes. In addition, an objector had written to highlight the felling and Mr C himself had spoken at the panel hearing and highlighted this issue. The regulatory panel chose not to visit the site or require updated photographic evidence as they did not consider it necessary to determine the application.

We considered Mr C's complaint and found that the regulatory panel had been made fully aware of the felling which had taken place and had the opportunity to request further information. As they did not consider this was required, however, they determined the application. We also found that the council had no responsibility to issue a new and updated report of handling following the tree felling and that, even if they had, they would not be obliged to issue copies of this document to objectors. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way these matters were dealt with by the council, we did not uphold the complaint.