Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with his housing application appropriately, and that their response to his complaint was unreasonable. Mr C was formerly in the armed forces, and was of the view that the council's poor handling of his application showed they were prejudiced against former military personnel.

Mr C had a waiting time ('credit' that decides where the person will be on the housing list) of just over 30 years, in relation to his application for a council house. This was because housing applicants who have left the armed forces within three years of making an application may have their application backdated to the date they entered the armed forces. However, even with 30 years waiting time, Mr C's application was ranked below those with priority status. Priority status can only be awarded after an assessment, and is normally based on factors such as preventing long term hospital and care home admissions, the need for adaptations to a property, homelessness, or overcrowding. The council's policy, based on an agreement with the armed forces, did not provide former armed forces personnel with enhanced eligibility for housing; it simply provided additional waiting time.

We found that the council had wrongly cancelled Mr C's housing account for 16 months. During that time, Mr C kept bidding for houses on the council's website, but he was unaware that these were not being considered as he did not receive an error message. The council had acknowledged that his account was cancelled but said that this did not disadvantage him in any way. We could not, however, see how they reached this conclusion.

We found that the council dealt reasonably with some aspects of Mr C's complaint,but did not respond to others. They also provided us with information that they should have given Mr C when they were dealing with it. We could not see any evidence of prejudice against Mr C because he was formerly in the armed forces. However, we upheld his complaints, as we had found administrative failing in the cancellation of his housing account, and in how they dealt with his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence to support the assertion that the cancellation of Mr C's housing account meant that he was in no way disadvantaged;
• provide us with evidence to show that the failing that led to the cancellation of Mr C's housing account has been corrected;
• provide Mr C, copied to us, with a clear statement of his current status as a housing applicant;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with all aspects of his complaint reasonably; and
• remind housing staff of the Employee's Guide to the Complaints Handling Procedure, as issued by our Complaints Standards Authority.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council did not follow procedures when dealing with a statutory notice served on their former property. A statutory notice was served in 2007 for maintenance work on the property, a tenement building with eight flats. The property owners were unable to reach agreement about carrying out the work, and the council were asked to take over the project. After a tendering process, a contractor was appointed and scaffolding erected. There was a full survey, additional works were found to be needed and the cost of the project increased substantially. An emergency statutory notice was served and property owners were billed retrospectively. When the bill was issued, Mr C and Ms C found that the total cost of the project had risen by more than £20,000.

They complained that the initial survey was carried out from street level by a council employee who was not a qualified surveyor. They did not think it possible for an accurate assessment to be completed from the ground, and said that the notice should not have been served until the scaffolding was erected and the full inspection carried out. They also complained about the escalation in the scale and cost of the work required on the property.

We found that the council had generally followed the procedure that they had in place at the time for serving statutory notices and for taking over the management of repairs. However, we found that non-emergency works were inappropriately included in the emergency notice and that the property owners were not properly told about the additional works identified or the costs they would be expected to cover. Given the sums involved, we were critical that there was no detailed record of the surveys, and of a lack of evidence of the work that was needed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reimburse Mr C and Ms C's share of the administration fees for work carried out under the statutory notices;
• apologise to Mr C and Ms C for the issues highlighted in our investigation;
• consider reviewing how they compile and record evidence of the work required on properties in cases where they are asked to take over the management of repairs required by statutory notices; and
• remind their staff of the importance of communicating any project developments to property owners, particularly when these will result in additional costs being passed on to them.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council left his daughter (Ms A) without a smoke detector for some time following a repair to her ceiling, and that this had endangered her life. He was concerned that they had failed to recognise the importance of his initial complaint about this, which he made as soon as he became aware of the situation. In responding to his complaints about this, and other matters, he said the council had not answered his specific points and that he had not been able to speak to the chief executive.

The chief executive, in responding to the complaint, had said that a tradesperson left a card when they could not gain access to the house, and Ms A had not responded. However, the council told us that they had now established that this information was incorrect and no such card was left. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the failure to ensure that a smoke alarm was fitted, and made two recommendations for improvements to the procedure for gaining access to a tenant's property when earlier attempts have been unsuccessful.

We found that the council had addressed all the issues Mr C had raised, within the 20 working days set out in their complaints handling procedure. We confirmed that the chief executive was correct in telling Mr C that it is not possible for him to deal personally with every complaint addressed to him, and confirmed we would not expect him to speak directly to a complainant except in very exceptional circumstances. We did not uphold the complaint about complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the inaccurate information in the chief executive's letter about the leaving of 'no access' cards at Ms A's home and his reliance on circumstantial evidence to support that information;
• review and revise, if appropriate, the process/procedures for what a tradesperson who cannot gain access to a tenant’s home should do given that, as access to the property was presenting a difficulty, the matter should have been referred to the local housing office; and
• provide evidence to show the change in their procedures which reflects that where a hard-wired smoke detector needs to be disconnected to enable repair works, and the works cannot be completed in a single visit, a battery-operated smoke detector will be fitted as a temporary measure.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not collected his recycling bins for ten weeks over the festive period, and were ignoring his calls for an uplift. The council told him that there had been a backlog over that period. They arranged for an uplift, apologised for the delay and said that they would monitor this to ensure he was receiving regular collections. Despite this, they then failed to collect his bin in the eight weeks after his complaint, and he complained to us.

After we got in touch with the council about this, they wrote to Mr C to explain that the reason for the problems was that they did not have a key to the back court area. The refuse depot had a key, but the recycling depot had misplaced it. They arranged for a copy to be made, allowing the recycling team access to the bin area. They apologised for their service and the problems Mr C had experienced and said they would monitor the situation to ensure he received regular collections.

The council's policies say that recycling should be collected at least once a month and this did not happen. We noted that if when Mr C first complained the council had explained and apologised as they did later, and had they effectively monitored his collections as they said they would, he might not have needed to complain to us. As his recycling was not collected in accordance with the council's policies, we upheld the complaint but because they had already explained and apologised, we made only one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• monitor Mr C's recycling collections for the next three months to ensure that he receives regular monthly uplifts, and provide us with evidence of this monitoring on completion of this process.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had not properly investigated her complaints after she raised a number of concerns with them. The complaints we looked at were not about the underlying issues, but were about how the council handled Ms C's complaints about them.

The evidence we saw indicated that the council had considered, investigated and replied to Ms C through their complaints procedure, so we did not uphold her complaint about the investigation. However, it was clear that they had not responded within the appropriate timescales and, in the absence of evidence to indicate why this had happened, we upheld that aspect of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• confirm to us the steps they have taken to ensure acknowledgements are issued more promptly.

Summary

Mr C applied to renew his concessionary travel card, but completed a form for a new application instead of requesting a renewal. This created a duplicate record for him on the system, which stopped the application process. When this was identified, the new record was cancelled and the renewal processed but Mr C did not receive the card in time for a long journey he had to make to attend a hospital appointment. His old card had expired by this point so he could not claim his full entitlement to expenses for the journey. He complained that the council were at fault for not providing him with appropriate advice and he felt that they were unreasonably blaming him for the delay.

The council said that they forward application forms to Transport Scotland for processing, as most of the responsibility for administering the scheme lies there. They explained that council staff only have limited administrative access to the card management system, including the ability to order card renewals once continued eligibility is confirmed. Transport Scotland then produce and dispatch the card. The council said the responsibility lies with cardholders to contact them in good time to arrange a renewal. They also said that the guidance notes with new application forms point out that these should not be used for renewal applications, and explained that receipt of a duplicate application freezes the process until a cardholder makes an enquiry, which prompts them to intervene and manually correct this.

Mr C felt that the council were responsible for the error as they did not give him clear advice and accepted the new application form from him. However, we were unable to identify what information he provided to the council or what advice they gave him. Due to their limited role, we were satisfied that it was appropriate for them to have forwarded the form to Transport Scotland in the first instance. They appeared to have done so without undue delay and, when the error was brought to their attention, they promptly fixed this. We found no evidence to suggest that the council provided Mr C with advice contrary to that set out in the guidance notes that were with the form he completed. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.