Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that City Parking (Glasgow) had ignored the findings of the adjudicator of the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. He was unhappy about an incident where a parking warden told him that he could not stop outside a hotel to collect luggage. On being warned he would incur a fine if he stopped there, he moved the car to a parking bay and paid for a ticket. He was unhappy about this because he had previously gone to the parking adjudicator about an earlier fine involving a similar issue. He had won that case and believed that this entitled him to stop on a single yellow line to load or unload passengers.

We found that while the council's interpretation of the traffic order differed from that of the parking adjudicator, each case is dealt with on its merits and the parking adjudicator's decision does not set a precedent. We also found that the parking adjudicator's decision did not give Mr C future rights under the traffic order that governs parking in the city.

Summary

Mr C was excluded from all the leisure facilities operated by the trust after an incident at one of the centres, which involved a member of staff. He complained that the investigation into his complaint about being excluded failed to take account of all the evidence.

We found that the decision to exclude Mr C appeared to have been taken on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of senior staff within the trust, and that they put no time-frame on his exclusion. The trust told us that they did not have a particular policy about excluding customers. We also found evidence that their investigation was not completed properly, because they did not clarify with Mr C what he was complaining about, and the evidence on which they relied in coming to their decision was incomplete, informal or unavailable. We upheld his complaints and made relevant recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the trust:

• prioritise formulating appropriate policy and procedures on the handling of complaints about unacceptable behaviour by customers, and the penalties if a complaint is upheld;
• consider the requirement for any complaint about a customer to be put to him/her in writing, providing advice of the right to make representations and a deadline for the submission, and an explanation of how any investigation will be conducted;
• set timescales for the length of time an exclusion will be in place when the trust have decided to exclude a customer from their facilities; and
• revisit the current situation on Mr C's exclusion in the light of the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) has a severe form of autism (a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and significant learning disabilities. The council recognised that her current tenancy did not meet her needs, and awarded her additional housing points. They did not, however, offer her the tenancy of a vacant property that Mr C had thought suitable for her. The council said that they had in fact assessed the property to see if it met Miss A's needs, and decided that it would not do so long-term. Mr C complained that this decision was based on false information and that the council had offered no solution to Miss A's housing difficulties.

Our investigation looked at the council's housing allocations policy, records of Miss A's needs and housing assessments, internal council correspondence about her housing allocation, and social work case notes. We also asked for more information about the assessment. We found that the council had followed their procedures properly, and that a social worker and a senior occupational therapy practitioner had assessed the property. They had decided that although it would meet Miss A's needs in some ways, overall it was unsuitable and they could not recommend it for her. This was a decision for them to take and as we found they had gone about it properly, we could not question it.

Summary

Mr C told us he had raised concerns about the behaviour, actions and attitudes of a number of council staff towards him. The council said they did not consider the complaints handling procedure to be the appropriate process to investigate his concerns and that they had been looked at under internal management policies instead. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained to us.

We looked at the model complaints handling procedure on which all councils should base their internal procedure, as introduced by our Complaints Standards Authority. This says that it should cover complaints about staff attitude, and also requires councils to advise complainants about their right to come to us if they remain dissatisfied after their consideration of a complaint.

We said that the council's interpretation was incorrect. Mr C's complaints about staff attitudes should have been considered under the complaints handling procedure. If investigation of such a complaint about staff attitude indicated that disciplinary action was indicated, then any disciplinary proceedings should be considered in private rather than as part of the complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to consider Mr C's complaints under the complaints handling procedure and for failing to inform him of his right to complain to the SPSO; and
• ensure internal guidance to staff on the complaints handling procedure accurately reflects the distinction between complaints about staff attitudes and the disciplinary procedures that may flow from such complaints, and provide us with a copy of the guidance.

Summary

Ms C became concerned about her child's educational progress after the child moved schools and reported classroom disruption. She complained to the council about this, and said that the school adopted a defensive and unhelpful attitude at a meeting she attended. The council investigated, but did not uphold her complaints.

Ms C then complained to us that the council did not adequately investigate and respond to her. Our investigation found that the council's investigation had not established all the relevant facts, and we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not adequately investigating and responding to her complaint; and
• investigate further her concerns about her child's individual progress and the classroom environment.

Summary

Mr C had outstanding council tax to pay for 2012/13, and made two payments to cover this. However, the council's computer system can only match payments with the exact amount outstanding, and Mr C had paid by sending two sums totalling the amount owed. Where the amount paid does not match the full amount owed, the system defaults to allocate it against the current year's council tax bill. Mr C did not know this, and had correctly followed the council's instructions when making his payments. He then received a summary warrant for the outstanding 2012/13 amount. He challenged the bill, and the council then said he had council tax outstanding for 2012/13. They later found that the sums paid had been allocated to the wrong year, but told him they could have done nothing to avoid this or the problems that later occurred. Mr C was unhappy at the time they took to identify the error and cancel the summary warrant, and complained to us.

We found that Mr C could not have been expected to be aware of the problem. We noted what the council said about their computer system, and that it cannot be modified, but we took the view that they were aware of this, and that it was for them to sort out problems that might arise. There was no evidence that they had done so, and the council's file showed that no-one checked Mr C's council tax records before applying for the warrant to be served. We would also expect the council to have checked his records and identified the problem when he then got in touch about the warrant, but this did not happen until he asked for a detailed breakdown of his account. We found that the council did not take adequate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns when he raised them, and so unnecessarily pursued him for unpaid council tax.

We also found that when Mr C complained, the council did not tell him that there would be a delay in replying, and he had to chase them several times for a response. When they did respond, they did so comprehensively and provided detailed answers to his complaint. However, we found that they could have acted sooner to address his concerns when he raised them. Lack of effective investigation at the early stages meant a large exchange of emails, and ultimately led to his complaint. There were also delays in recognising the error in Mr C's bill, in communicating with the sheriff officers, and in responding to his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their processes for payment of council tax arrears, obtaining summary warrants for unpaid council tax and dealing with queries about such warrants, to ensure that any computer errors of the type noted in this complaint can be identified by council staff; and
• make a redress payment to Mr C in recognition of their failure to identify the computer error at an early stage and to communicate the cancellation of the summary warrant promptly to the sheriff officers.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about the actions of council planning officers during consideration of an application she had submitted for permission in principle to build a new dwelling house on her property. She complained that an officer had invented a requirement about the distance the proposed development required to be from her neighbour's boundary, that the reasons given for refusal had not been mentioned in pre-application advice that she had received and that the reasons were not relevant to an application for 'in principle' planning permission.

She was dissatisfied with the responses she received and complained to us. Our investigation found that some of the issues she raised were not addressed. We took the view that the council had not provided full responses to her concerns, and upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C that their responses to her complaints were not as full as they could be; and
• provide Ms C with full responses to her concerns.

Summary

Mr C owns a flat, which he rents out. In 2009, the council served two statutory notices for repairs to the roof, slates, stonework, a chimney stack and the gutter and to clear rhones and downpipes. This was completed by August 2010, but an emergency statutory notice was served during the defect liability period (the period allowed after completion of repairs for any defects to be identified) to clear choked drains. Leaks to the gutters/pipes needed attention at the end of this time, and work was completed by a different contractor. Mr C then complained to us that the council had refused to accept that internal damage in his property was due to the statutory notice works being defective.

Our investigation found that although work had been undertaken after the contract was completed, there was no evidence to substantiate Mr C's claim that the damage was a result of the contractor not carrying out the repairs properly. The council explained that the problem of water ingress, which Mr C said had caused the internal damage in his flat, had been happening for a long time due to a water-damaged wall, and it appeared from the evidence that drains becoming blocked was a regular occurrence.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy about the cost of repairs carried out to his communal roof under a statutory repair notice. He said that the final invoice was considerably higher than the original quote, and he had not received a satisfactory explanation as to why that was the case.

We found, however, that the council had explained on more than one occasion, and in considerable detail, why the final invoice was higher. They had also apologised for failing to keep owners informed of the increasing costs while the work was being carried out. We did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

In 2012, the council sent Mr C a cheque with a refund of overpaid council tax. In 2013 he asked them to issue a new cheque, saying that the original was out-of-date and the bank would not accept it. Mr C said his local office advised him to send this back to a named officer in the council's Revenues and Benefits Division, which he said he did. The council investigated what had happened, but told Mr C they would not issue a new cheque because the original had already been paid into his bank. He disputed this and complained to us that the council had failed to investigate his complaint about it.

Our investigation found evidence confirming that the cheque had been deposited in Mr C's account. We also noted that they said he had not sent them back a cheque but a remittance advice slip. However, we upheld his complaint because we found that the council did not deal with it well, and that he had been put to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing it. His complaint was subject to delay, confusion, poor record-keeping, and a failure to recognise that his correspondence was a complaint and to deal with it in good time.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue an apology, in recognition of the fact that Mr C's complaint was not dealt with correctly;
• make a goodwill payment to Mr C, in recognition of the unnecessary time and trouble he was put to in pursuing his complaint;
• issue advice to staff in the Revenues and Benefits Division that all replies to customers' communications should identify when the customer made contact, how contact was made and what the contact was about; and
• ensure that the learning from this complaint is shared with relevant staff.