Local Government

Summary

Miss C complained that the council removed an oven, hob and laminated flooring from her former tenancy in spite of a council officer having agreed that they would be offered for sale to the new tenant, and that Miss C would remove them if the tenant did not want them. The council said the oven and hob had been taken to the recycling centre, but Miss C disagreed that this had happened and also said that they had thrown out items left outside the property, which she had intended returning to get.

During our investigation the council accepted that there had been a verbal agreement about the hob and oven. They also admitted that they had made a mistake in that, when they were unable to contact the new tenant, they had not told Miss C, and had instead disposed of the items. They explained that the laminate flooring was damaged during the normal course of work and that they had the right to remove it, as Miss C had not done so before returning the keys. They said that the items left outside the house were disposed of after Miss C had returned the keys and stopped paying rent for the property.

We upheld the complaint as the council had not kept to the verbal agreement they had with Miss C. However, as they had already apologised and had decided not to recharge her for the costs incurred when she moved out, we did not find it necessary to make recommendations.

Summary

Ms C was considering making an offer to buy a property and called the council to ask if the property was eligible for a parking permit. When she was told that it was, she asked that they confirm this by email. Ms C received an email shortly afterwards, and instructed her solicitor to submit an offer. She then read the email and discovered that it did not confirm that the property was eligible for a permit. She got in touch with the council, who said that the property was not eligible for a permit, but accepted that she had previously been given incorrect information. Ms C also believed that the council promised her compensation during a phone conversation, but then did not offer this. Ms C complained but the council remained of the view that compensation was not merited.

Ms C complained to us and we reviewed the available recordings of phone conversations. We upheld her complaint that the council had given her incorrect information about the criteria for the issuing of parking permits. However, we found no evidence that she was promised compensation, and did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind all relevant staff of the criteria for the issuing of parking permits.

Summary

When Mr A was refused a street trader's licence, he asked the council for a statement of reasons for the refusal. He then complained about the refusal, the reasons given for refusal and the time taken to provide those reasons. He remained dissatisfied when he received the council's responses and Mr C complained to us on his behalf.

The council argued that various court opinions indicated that the timescale given in legislation for the provision of statements of reasons was not mandatory. We considered the council's argument but decided that the view courts may take in the event of appeals being made to them was not relevant to a complaint about administrative handling. We, therefore, upheld that complaint along with others relating to the council's handling of Mr A's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr A that they did not provide the statement of reasons within ten days;
• apologise to Mr A that they did not respond reasonably to his complaints; and
• remind relevant staff that they should be clear from the start of the investigation stage exactly what matters they will be investigating, and that complaint responses address all the areas that the council is responsible for and explain the reasons for any decisions reached.

Summary

Mr C wanted to buy an area of land behind his property to create a new driveway. The council, however, refused to sell it to him because they believed that any access would impact the status of the green space area concerned. Mr C then complained that land in the same green space had been sold to another residential neighbour and to a utilities company.

We made enquiries with the council and found that their decision to refuse to sell the land was one that they were entitled to make. We also found that they had considered and responded to each of Mr C's concerns. His disagreement with the council's decision was not in itself evidence of maladministration, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that when she agreed to move a smaller new build house, the council told her they would cover the costs of her move under the transfer incentive scheme (TIS). She was then, however, charged much more than she had been led to expect for repairs to her former council property after she moved out. This used up a considerable amount of the money available under the TIS, and so some of the costs with which the council had said they would assist could not be met. She also complained about problems with items in her new home, and about the council's handling of her representations.

During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had explained to Miss C that they would assist with the costs of the move up to the maximum allowed under the TIS. They had also explained before the move that they would not be able to meet all of the costs involved. They had, however, offered to exceed the budget allowed under the TIS to meet the costs of new laminate flooring, but Miss C did not accept this offer. The council confirmed that there was no money available within the new financial year to meet the costs of floor coverings. They also provided details of the repairs required to Miss C's former property.

During our investigation the council took action to replumb Miss C's washing machine and to install a rotary dryer at her new property. They confirmed that a number of other issues had been identified relating to the new build houses and that the developer would address these. We were, therefore, satisfied that the council had responded to Miss C and addressed her concerns, in line with their complaints process. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints, although we made recommendations as we were concerned that administrative omissions meant that not all the information about what happened was available, including that there was no written record of their extensive communication with Miss C by phone and during meetings.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the need to ensure that the pre-transfer form is signed by the tenant prior to the transfer;
• consider keeping a written record of any phone call or meeting with a tenant where a decision/agreement is reached; and
• ensure that when a repair is cancelled a record of the reason for the cancellation is recorded.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that a survey they had undertaken about the introduction and location of glass recycling banks at the apartment blocks he lives in was not carried out in line with their plan for local involvement. The council told him that they considered the consultation had met the terms of the plan.

Mr C was dissatisfied and complained to us. The council's plan said that three weeks would be given for individuals to respond to surveys, but only two weeks had been given in this case. The plan also said that relevant groups would be consulted, but the residents' association for the apartment blocks were not consulted. The council said that they did not consider this necessary as all residents were sent surveys to complete. However, the council provided no evidence to indicate that this, or any aspect of the local involvement plan, was considered before undertaking the survey. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that consultations should be carried out in line with the local involvement plan;
• put up signage on the glass recycling banks asking that glass only be deposited within specific hours of operation; and
• deliver information to each property in the apartment blocks, giving details of the hours of operation of the glass recycling bank.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed proper planning procedures when they approved the building of a house on a site near her property. Mrs C said that proper consultation had not taken place and that the objections she and others raised at planning committee were not reasonably considered. She also complained that the decision was not in line with the development plan for the area, and that this was not adequately explained and recorded by the council.

Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and their responses to her complaints. We also examined relevant planning regulations, policies and development plans, and the papers presented to the committee that approved the planning application, including the planning officer's report and the minutes of the committee meeting. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about lack of community involvement and consultation, but we did uphold her complaint that the council did not properly follow procedure. We found that the planning application approval was not accurately documented as a departure from policy, as required by regulations, and we made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not clearly recording the approval as a departure from policy; and
• consider how best to ensure such exceptional planning approval decisions are accurately documented.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had installed a new culvert (a tunnel carrying a stream or open drain) under the road above his property. The culvert drained directly onto his land, and he said that it had eroded his driveway and caused problems with water run-off around his house. Mr C said that he was there when workmen constructed the culvert, and there had been no management presence on site. He had contacted the council at the first available opportunity, but was told that although the location of the culvert was detrimental to his property, the council had no option but to locate it there. Mr C said he was also told that the culvert replaced an existing culvert which had collapsed, and as it was not considered a new culvert, the council had no obligation to tell him about it.

Mr C complained and was told that the council's primary obligation was to ensure the road was safe by preventing surface water collecting on it. The council said that the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 gave them the necessary authority for their actions. They recognised that the culvert had a detrimental impact on Mr C's property and offered to pay half the cost of additional drainage to reduce its impact.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. We found that the logical conclusion of the council's position was that they were entitled to install drainage, regardless of the impact this had on an individual's property. Although it was reasonable for them to take action to provide drainage, our investigation found that they could not provide evidence to prove that a culvert had previously been there. We also found no evidence that they tried to identify or contact Mr C, even though it was apparent his house would be directly impacted. Because of this, we found that the council had acted unreasonably, as they had not given him the opportunity to discuss this before putting the culvert in place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• meet the cost in full of providing adequate drainage from the culvert to the burn at the edge of the property affected;
• review their roads drainage policy, to ensure that affected owners and occupiers are identified and appropriately consulted before works commence;
• provide evidence that they are compiling an asset register of all culverts; and
• apologise for the failings identified by our investigation.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the social care provided to her late husband (Mr A) in the last days of his life. Mr A had been discharged home from hospital into the care of his GP and the district nursing service, with the support of social care officers. It was known that he was dying and there had been a meeting to discuss the support he would need at home. It was considered that Mr A should be nursed and cared for in a hospital bed. Mr and Mrs A did not want this and he was cared for in his own bed. However, there were practical difficulties with this, which compromised the support given to Mr A by council care officers. Mrs A was distressed that during the last days of her husband's life he was not afforded the dignity and respect he required and deserved.

We investigated the complaint and found that the council had acknowledged their role in the poor care provided to Mr A. Staff had not been able to manage Mr A physically because of difficulties presented by the absence of a hospital bed. They had, however, not told managers of their concerns about Mr A's care being compromised as a result of this. This was explained to Mrs A when she complained, and the council had apologised unreservedly and told her Mrs A what they had done to try to avoid this happening to someone else.

It was not in dispute that the council failed to provide Mr and Mrs A with the level of support they could have expected, so we upheld the complaint. However, the investigation also showed that the procedures the council had since put in place went far in attempting to prevent a similar situation happening. Mrs A had also received a sincere apology, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council did not do enough to sort out dampness in her former home, where she was their tenant. She said that it caused mould and that items of personal property were ruined because of this. She told us that she repeatedly reported dampness, but the situation did not improve and she eventually gave up her tenancy because of the problems.

Our investigation found that the council had carried out work on the property when she first raised her concerns. They then arranged a survey, which showed a problem with condensation rather than dampness. As a result of this, they carried out more work. Although there was a delay in some of this being completed satisfactorily, the council had apologised and had taken action to complete it. Ms C disagreed that the problems related to condensation and had continuing concerns. The council carried out a further inspection and ordered other work to be done. However, Ms C left the property before this could happen. We did not uphold her complaint as, although she disagreed about the cause of the problem, we found that the council acted reasonably in trying to identify and address it.