Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about noise from a neighbour on several occasions. Early on in these complaints, officers twice verified that there was excess noise, and issued her neighbour with warning notices. Ms C continued to complain to the council about noise, and they told her they would take legal action against her neighbour.

Ms C's concerns about noise continued, but she told us that she stopped complaining because she thought action was being taken. When nothing happened, Ms C made a formal complaint, and was told that there had been miscommunication within the council, and that, as there were no current complaints, no legal action would be taken.

The council's antisocial behaviour procedures specified what action should be taken in relation to each noise complaint. Our investigation found that the council did not keep Ms C updated and did not maintain records appropriately. They also failed to offer mediation early in the process, as required by their procedures. Finally, we found that internal communication had failed, meaning that because there were no recent verified complaints they were not able to take legal action even though they had said they would.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that staff in the antisocial investigation team take into account and follow the antisocial behaviour procedure when dealing with antisocial behaviour complaints, including the need to keep adequate records and to consider offering mediation;
• advise the Ombudsman of the steps taken to address the communications failures that occurred in this case between the antisocial investigation team and housing support;
• ensure that a procedure to manage antisocial behaviour complaints for this type of tenancy is put in place without further delay and provide evidence of this; and
• apologise to Ms C for their failures to follow their antisocial behaviour procedure, and for the inconvenience and upset that this caused her.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council's planning enforcement team about tree pruning that had taken place at a property in the conservation area where he lives. The council contacted the person who had had the trees pruned, who then took steps to mitigate this. The council decided that this was satisfactory, and took no further action. Mr C was unhappy as he thought that the council should have taken enforcement action.

We took advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the council's actions in responding to this matter were reasonable. He also said that in a conservation area, while there is a presumption in favour of preserving trees, they are not automatically protected. As we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure by the council, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that, after he ended his tenancy, the council unreasonably invoiced him for works they carried out to his council house. He explained that while he was still a tenant he had tried to contact the council, in writing and by phone, asking for permission to make alterations and improvements to his home. As he did not hear from them to the contrary, he had gone ahead with the work.

The council explained that they had no record of Mr C's attempts to contact them. They said that they had to carry out substantial repairs and alterations to return the house to a condition where they could re-let it, and they provided us with details of all the work that was done. They also explained that the tenancy agreement specified that if works were carried out without permission, the council were entitled to reclaim (from the tenant who carried them out) the cost of returning the property to an acceptable letting standard.

We reviewed the information from both Mr C and the council, and could find no evidence to show that he had tried to get permission. As the council clearly did not give their permission, and as in those circumstances the tenancy agreement entitled them to recover the costs, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's neighbour is a council tenant living in temporary accommodation. Mrs C said that the tenant was noisy on a number of occasions, and she was unhappy with the council's response to the problem. She complained that the council were not dealing with this effectively, and that a housing officer gave neighbours incorrect information about who to contact if there were further problems.

We reviewed the relevant records and correspondence, as well as the council's comments on the complaint and their procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. We concluded that the council's actions were reasonable and were taken in line with their procedure. We also found no evidence that the housing officer had given incorrect information about who to contact, so we could not uphold Mrs C's complaint and we made no recommendations. We did, however, suggest to the council that they could in future consider providing written information, such as a leaflet, for neighbours with details of who to contact about any further antisocial behaviour.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's assessment of a planning application for the construction of a dormer window and roof-light in a neighbouring house in a conservation area. He said that they had not properly assessed the application against the relevant planning policies, local development plan and the area conservation appraisal.

The council responded to the complaint by acknowledging that the case officer's report did not fully detail the consideration of the application, and made it difficult to understand the council's decision-making. However, they had reviewed the way the application was considered and concluded that the decision was appropriate.

We took independent advice on this from one of our planning advisers, considered the relevant case files and reviewed the planning application and relevant planning policies. From our review we were satisfied that the application had been properly considered, taking into account the conservation status of the area and the relevant local conservation appraisal document, local development plan and planning policy. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the application was considered, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C owns a property in a building where the council administer a tenement management scheme (TMS). He was unhappy about the way in which the council billed him for various emergency works there. He also said that there was a delay in issuing invoices, the council did not ensure that invoices and final notices were printed and delivered in a timely manner, and that an incorrect date of payment received was referred to in responses to his complaint.

We made enquiries of the council, and received their comments and relevant paperwork. They accepted that there was an unreasonable delay in issuing the invoices, and we found that they did not appear to have told Mr C or other residents about their normal practice in dealing with these. We upheld this element of his complaint, as well as the incorrect date of payment being shown, which the council also acknowledged. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the printing and issuing of invoices and final notices, we saw no evidence that the delay was caused by the council's mail processing, and so we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in issuing invoices for work undertaken at his property;
• review their invoicing procedure under the TMS, specifically in relation to the timely issuing of invoices and how residents are kept informed of when invoices will be issued; and
• apologise to Mr C for the errors in two of their letters.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to maintain an area of the road near his property. He also complained that a nearby sewer was deteriorating, meaning that it was potentially dangerous for people using the area. Mr C brought his complaint to us as he said the council had not addressed either issue, although he had been in correspondence with them for some time.

We reviewed the correspondence and found that the council had explained to Mr C that it was unclear whether they had adopted that part of the road or whether it remained a nearby housing association's responsibility. They said that their solicitors were working to clarify this and provided details of another nearby area where they were carrying out maintenance work, to try to reassure Mr C that they maintained areas for which they were responsible. They also explained that they would write to the housing association and Scottish Water about the sewer, although they explained that it was not the council's responsibility to maintain it.

We reviewed the correspondence and found no evidence to indicate any underlying administrative failure by the council. We did, however, consider that there had been shortcomings in the correspondence, which had caused confusion as to how matters were being progressed and so, while we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• contact Scottish Water again to request an investigation into the collapsed sewer near Mr C's home.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who was acting for a member of his family.

We took independent advice on this complaint from a social work adviser. The code of practice for local authorities exercising functions under the Adults with Incapacity Act (Scotland) 2000 sets out how a local authority should investigate a complaint about a welfare power of attorney. We found that the council's investigation was not carried out in accordance with the guidance in that code. There was no evidence that they had obtained relevant information and the views of other interested parties before completing their investigation, or that they had asked to see the welfare power of attorney's records.

The council had also received advice that there was no requirement for a welfare power of attorney to abide by the code of practice for continuing and welfare attorneys, and in view of this, they had not assessed the person's actions against this code. We did not consider that it was reasonable for them to disregard the code on this basis, as it sets out good practice, interpretation of the relevant legislation and a standard against which to assess the actions and suitability of an attorney. There was also no evidence that they then used anything else against which to assess the actions of the person Mr C had complained about, and we upheld his complaint about their investigation. We also found that the council delayed in responding to his complaints about their investigation and upheld his complaint about this too.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney appropriately;
• take steps to ensure that the issues he raised have been investigated appropriately; and
• make staff involved in investigating complaints against welfare power of attorneys aware of our findings on the complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that during gale force winds the boundary wall between a council building and his home collapsed. The debris fell into his garden, damaging his property, and he made a compensation claim to the council. The company who handled this on the council's behalf turned the claim down, and Mr C complained to us that in doing so they followed an unreasonable process. He said that they did not consider all relevant evidence, failed to clearly and consistently explain the reasons for their decision and delayed unreasonably in processing his claim.

Although we found that the company's record-keeping was lacking at some points, we found no evidence that they failed to consider all the evidence required to process the claim. Neither did we find the timescales in processing his claim unreasonable, although they should have written with an update during the early stages. They responded to Mr C's remaining enquiries quite promptly.

The documentation confirmed, however, that the company changed the rationale behind their decision during the course of the correspondence. This would not have been unreasonable if new evidence had come to light. However, we could see no clear reason for the differing explanations. The company made no further enquiries and did not obtain new evidence after issuing their second decision letter, but continued with the change in their reasoning. They also failed to respond to one of Mr C's main arguments in support of his claim, although they had information about this from the council. There was no clear record of the company's actions in response to each of Mr C's communications, or of how this affected their decision-making.

We were also critical because the council did not deal with this under their complaints procedure. The determination of liability would be a matter for the courts. However, a complaint about the administrative handling of a claim falls within the remit of the council's complaints procedure and should have been dealt with through that. Overall, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision to the staff involved to ensure that such failings do not occur in future;
• ensure that the company record all key actions/communications on their handling of future claims; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C's elderly mother (Mrs A) suffers from vascular dementia (a common form of dementia, caused by problems in the supply of blood to the brain). Mrs A was in receipt of a meals service provided to her at home. The council had contracted with a company (the contractor) for the meals service, and the contractor had then sub-contracted this to a meals service provider (the provider). Mr C believed that his mother might have made unreceipted cash payments to the provider's delivery driver. Mr C complained that the council did not assess the risk of doorstep cash payments for users of the meals service.

Mr C said that both the council and the provider had refused to allow him to pay by direct debit, while allowing users of the service to pay by cash on the doorstep. He complained that the council had failed to reasonably assess the risks of doorstep payments, particularly in the case of elderly and vulnerable service users. He pointed out that without receipts it was not possible to verify what payments were made. The council said that all appropriate capability and risk assessments, including security checks, were carried out and that their actions in respect of Mrs A had complied with their equality duties. They said they had not refused to allow direct debit payments - rather the provider did not have the facility for this. Following their investigation of Mr C's complaint, they said that the delivery driver now gave the recipient of the service a written receipt for cash and cheque payments. In Mrs A's case, the council also agreed to meet the full cost of the meals service with the provider and then recharge Mrs A for this.

We were satisfied that it was a matter for the council, in consultation with the contractor and the provider, to create policies and procedures for the provision and operation of the service, including payment methods. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint as, although the council had carried out various assessments in respect of users of the service, we were not persuaded that these addressed the risk issues of cash payments, particularly for vulnerable service users such as Mrs A. We also considered that the system that was in place did not have sufficient safeguards to properly evidence what, if any, payment was made when the meal was delivered, and we made a recommendation about this. We saw no evidence that the council had previously refused to allow payment by direct debit, and accepted that the system in place at the time did not allow for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C with an apology for the failings identified in this complaint; and
• discuss with the contractor and the provider obtaining a duplicate receipt for all cash and cheque payments.