Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that a close family friend she took along to an independently chaired complaint meeting was not allowed to speak on Mrs C's behalf or ask questions. We found that Mrs C had been asked in advance whether she was bringing a representative and that she told the council she would only be bringing somebody to support her but not represent her. Therefore, we found that the council had acted reasonably.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about noise and air pollution from a nearby industrial site. The council looked into the matter but did not consider the problems to constitute a statutory nuisance. However, Mrs C did not feel that the council had taken sufficient steps to investigate her concerns and she was unhappy that they failed to take action against the site owners.

It was not our role to assess whether a nuisance existed as that was a matter for the council. The focus of our investigation was to establish whether the council acted in line with the appropriate procedures when investigating Mrs C’s complaints.

The available evidence demonstrated that the council made a significant number of visits to the area, and carried out tests, to determine whether or not a statutory nuisance existed. They also contacted relevant specialists for advice on measuring the air pollution concerns. They responded to each of the complaints of nuisance raised by Mrs C within an appropriate timeframe. While they could have done more to keep Mrs C up to date on the progress of their investigations, they had already acknowledged this and apologised to Mrs C. In the absence of any evidence of administrative failure in the way the council investigated the complaints of nuisance, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council’s handling of his tenant’s application for Local Housing Allowance (LHA). There were significant delays in the processing of the application, and Mr C completed a form to ensure that the first payment was made directly to him. However, a computer system fault meant that the first payment went directly to the tenant’s bank account, instead of to Mr C. When Mr C asked the council about what was happening, the system fault was identified. It also appeared that the council had inappropriately made a second payment to the tenant.

While the council were responding to Mr C’s complaint, they provided varying explanations about the second payment, but eventually provided payment of this smaller sum to Mr C. However, they said that they were unable to pay Mr C the first payment, as this payment had already been made to the tenant, and it was Mr C's responsibility to seek payment from his tenant.

We found that the council delayed in processing the application, and there were then faults with the payment system. We found that it would have been reasonable for the council to make the first payment directly to Mr C, but they should have confirmed with the tenant that he had not already paid any rent for this period.

We were also critical of the council's handling of Mr C’s complaint. They did not identify the complaint appropriately, or respond within their stated timescales. They also did not tell Mr C why the investigation was taking longer or when he could expect a response. We also identified failures with the way the council responded to the complaint, giving Mr C inconsistent information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• pay the cost of the first payment which was sent in error to the tenant;
• apologise to Mr C for the errors in handling the tenant’s LHA application, and for the time and effort involved in this complaint; and
• review the need for the staff involved in processing LHA applications to receive training in complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C's home was being repossessed and he applied to the council for housing. The council initially concluded that Mr C was not homeless or threatened with homelessness and decided it was reasonable for him to continue living in his home. Mr C complained about the way his housing assessment was handled and the council acknowledged that the service he received could have been better. The council took steps to address the issues prior to Mr C bringing his complaint to us and we were satisfied there was no evidence to suggest that Mr C's housing application has been affected. In addition, Mr C was made an offer of housing, which he accepted, shortly after referring his complaint to us. We concluded that the council’s handling of Mr C’s application for housing was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

We also looked at the council’s handling of Mr C’s complaint. We were satisfied that his complaints were investigated appropriately by the council and they provided clear responses. The council acknowledged there were issues and took appropriate steps to address them. For example, when Mr C’s housing application was closed down, the council acknowledged that more information should have been gathered and because of that, they agreed to review the decision. However, the council did not inform Mr C of his right to refer his complaint to us and they should have done that. Nonetheless, the information available confirmed that Mr C brought his complaint to us in the same month he received the council's final response. Therefore, even though he was not referred to us by the council, the failure to do so did not adversely affect his right to come to our office. We were satisfied that, on balance, the council’s overall handling of Mr C’s complaint was reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him of his right to refer his complaint to us.

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.