Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs A, who are private landlords, leased properties to tenants introduced to them by the council's social work department. They said that at the end of these leases, their properties were in a state of disrepair. Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A that the council had made a verbal agreement that, when recommending tenants, the council would reinstate the properties to their pre-letting condition when the tenancies ended. He also complained that the council had withheld information about the tenants and during the tenancies, and had failed to supervise the tenants.

While we recognised that Mr C said that a verbal commitment had been given in relation to the tenants, our investigation found no evidence that any commitment had been given to supervise or to agree to reinstate the properties at the end of the tenancies. In addition we found no evidence that the council had withheld information that Mr and Mrs A were entitled to see.

Summary

When Mr C's aunt moved into a nursing home, the council provided interim funding for her fees until they could complete the appropriate financial assessment. Once this was done, they tried to recover the cost from Mr C. He complained that there was confusion about how much was owed. The council investigated and upheld Mr C's complaint. They found three main errors. They had originally charged for an additional week's care, requiring the invoice to be amended; and the nursing home had charged the council at an outdated rate for part of this time and the invoice again had to be reissued. Finally, there was a numerical typing error in one of the council's letters which meant that the amount shown as the balance owed was wrong.

We noted the problems that they had found, and what they had done to address these. However, we also found another error in the correspondence. The council had written to Mr C's solicitor to explain that the weekly rate changed on 1 April 2013. They then wrote to him again less than two weeks later to say that the change took effect from 8 April 2013. Taking everything into account, we upheld Mr C's complaint. As, however, the council had provided documentary evidence to show what they had already done to prevent this from happening again, we made only one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the confusion in their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council handled a complaint he made about social work involvement with him and his family. He was unhappy that the council asked him to restrict the information he wanted to present to a social work complaints review committee (CRC) and said that the council allowed the CRC to take place knowing that it would be unable to address the details of his complaint. He also complained that the council had referred him to the SPSO inappropriately and that a council manager involved in investigating his stage two complaint had also been involved in the social work decision-making.

We took the view that the council did not request this to try to prevent Mr C from putting forward his detailed arguments. It was intended as helpful advice, given their knowledge of CRCs and how they operate. The request was, however, worded in such a way that they asked (rather than advised) him to restrict the amount of information he presented to the CRC. The council were able to give him advice, but our view was that only the members of the CRC itself could ask him to restrict his submission and so we upheld this element of his complaint. We did not uphold his other complaints. We found that Mr C was given the opportunity to speak about this in full at the CRC and that CRC members had access to his full submission. There was, therefore, no evidence that they were unable to consider his complaints sufficiently and robustly. We also took the view that the council acted correctly by referring Mr C to the SPSO, in line with their obligations under the SPSO Act, and the evidence we saw did not support his view that the manager was involved in investigating the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back to the relevant committee services staff that, while the council can advise a complainant, only the CRC themselves can request that a complainant restricts their submission.

Summary

Mr C was concerned about the development of a piece of land near his home. The council had given planning permission for development of the site, with certain conditions attached. Just before the time limit on this consent expired, some work was carried out on the site, after which the council confirmed that the developer had discharged their responsibilities under the planning conditions. Mr C complained to the council that this decision was unreasonable, and that they had not made relevant documents available to the public as required by legislation. The council responded to Mr C's complaints, but he remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

Our investigation found that the council had acted in line with legislation and procedure in deciding whether the conditions had been discharged. They had not, however, made all relevant documents available as they should have done so we upheld that element of the complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints, but we decided this had been reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind their staff that they must ensure that all relevant parts of the planning register are available to the public as required in legislation.

Summary

Mrs C applied to the council for assistance through a community care grant. This is available to help people on a low income live independently in the community and is paid out of the Scottish Welfare Fund, which is a national scheme delivered by local authorities. Mrs C applied to the scheme mainly for help with purchasing household items, including carpets and curtains. The council decided not to award Mrs C assistance for carpets and curtains because they said her circumstances did not match the situation with which community care grants were set up to help. They said she purchased the items herself before the decision on her application was made, and pointed out that they normally awarded items in goods, not cash.

Mrs C complained about the way the council handled her application. She said she was not told that, if her application was successful, the award for carpets and curtains would be in goods. She also said the council failed to appropriately respond to her complaint.

We listened to a copy of the recording of Mrs C's phone call in which she applied for assistance. This confirmed that she was not told that if her application was successful the council would provide the relevant items. We noted that both the council's decision makers guide and Scottish Government guidance confirm that the council are entitled to decide whether to make such awards in goods or cash. However, the council should have clearly explained this to Mrs C at the start. Also, after listening to the call, we found that the call handler was often vague when trying to explain what the council needed from Mrs C to progress her application, and their position often conflicted with the information in the Scottish Government guidance. We also found that the call handler commented inappropriately about other benefits that Mrs C received. In light of this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council's handling of her application was poor.

In addition, when responding to Mrs C's complaint, the council wrongly told her she was advised when she applied that any award would be provided as goods, and that they could find no evidence of call handlers asking unnecessary questions. As already noted, the tape of the call evidenced that she was not told how any grant would be made, and we were concerned by the call handler's approach and line of questioning. Because of that, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council did not respond appropriately to her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified with the handling of Mrs C's application;
• make a time and trouble payment - from the council's own budget - in recognition of the significant customer service failings identified with the handling of Mrs C's application for a community care grant;
• revise any community care grant publications to ensure it is clearly explained that the council have discretion in deciding whether to award goods or cash;
• apologise to Mrs C for failing to respond appropriately to her complaint; and
• reflect on the response provided to Mrs C's complaint and feed back to the Ombudsman any actions taken as a result of that.

Summary

Mrs C and Mr D both owned property next to land for which a planning application for development was submitted and approved. During the period of consultation on the application Mrs C was given access to the council's planning file, including a business plan submitted as part of the application. Mrs C and Mr D submitted objections to the application, but work subsequently began on the development, including closing a road so that passing places could be built.

Mrs C and Mr D both complained to the council that the report had not been reasonable in dealing with a number of council policies, national guidance and the business plan, that the passing places had not been built in line with council standards, that the road closure had not been undertaken in line with council guidance and that a letter Mrs C had submitted was not responded to within a reasonable timescale. The council responded saying that the report was reasonable, that Mrs C should not have been given access to the business plan, that the passing places and the road closure had been in line with relevant standards and guidance. They agreed that they had not met their service standards in regard to the response to Mrs C's letter.

Mrs C and Mr D were not satisfied and raised their complaints with us. We looked at these complaints together. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the report had been reasonable, that the passing places had been built in line with the relevant standards and that the road closure had been undertaken in line with the relevant guidance. We did not uphold these complaints. We upheld the complaint about the time taken to respond to Mrs C's letter but, as the council had apologised for this and had reminded staff involved about their customer service standards to ensure that there was no recurrence of this, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of enquiries he had made to them about the prospect of developing a plot of land he had purchased. In particular, he was concerned that the council had released his private email address and information to a councillor and a third party. He also said that the planning officer he had spoken to had acted incorrectly in giving pre-application advice; the council had not acted in an open and transparent way during a phone call about a proposal to place a tree preservation order (TPO) on a tree on the land; and that their action in placing a TPO on the tree was unreasonable.

During our investigation we found no evidence to support Mr C's allegation that the council released his private email address or information to a councillor or third party. We were also satisfied that the planning officer acted correctly in relation to the advice offered. We did, however, take the view that it would have been helpful had the officer clarified that Mr C had the right to submit a planning application and obtain a formal decision from the planning authority.

There was no evidence to support Mr C's concern that a member of staff did not act in an open and transparent manner during a phone conversation about the TPO. We also found that members of the public had written to the council requesting that a TPO be placed on the tree, and that it was appropriate for the council to take the action they did in putting a TPO in place. We were also satisfied that the TPO request was considered under the council's evaluation criteria. However, we did find that some of the terminology used did not reflect current TPO regulations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider explaining in standard responses to pre-application enquiries that a definitive decision on any proposal could only be obtained by submitting a planning application to the authority; and
• ensure the terms used to describe the TPO process reflected the current TPO regulations.

Summary

Ms C had council tax arrears, and had made arrangements (with sheriff officers acting for the council) to clear these. She told us that she had not disputed the arrears but when she was interested in buying her home and asked the council to issue her with a right to buy certificate, they had unreasonably declined to do so because she had uncollected council tax arrears. However, she had an invoice from the sheriff officers saying that her account for the period in dispute was clear. She told us that the information from the council about her council tax account was inconsistent and inaccurate; and that the council unreasonably expected her to keep payment receipts for 20 years.

We were provided with only limited evidence from both Ms C and the council, but the council confirmed that in 2010 a request from solicitors acting for Ms C for a right to buy certificate was declined on that basis. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint about this because the council’s records showed that her account was in arrears in 2013. However, our investigation found a disparity in the information that sheriff officers acting for the council had given Ms C, and that provided by the council. The council have a duty in law to collect council tax, and we found nothing restricting them from taking steps to collect old debts. However, as it was unclear what arrears were outstanding in recent years, we upheld this point of complaint and made recommendations. It was too late for us to investigate actions taken 20 years ago, and we explained to Ms C that we could not consider events from that time.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to include an enquiry to their debt management partners about the balance of arrears on a customer's council tax account before responding to an enquiry or complaint related to such an account;
• put Ms C's account on hold while further investigation is undertaken into the transactions undertaken on her council tax accounts through sheriff officers, and provide both her and the Ombudsman with documentation which confirms how their findings about the balance on her accounts was arrived at;
• waive any statutory penalties that have not been levied correctly; and
• formally apologise to Ms C.

Summary

When Mr C bought his home, the road outside had a number of speed cushions to slow down traffic. Some years later, the council decided that the road needed to be resurfaced. When they checked the condition of the speed cushions, they found that these had deteriorated and could not be reused. In the months immediately following the resurfacing, temporary vehicle activated speed signs were installed, and speeds and traffic volumes were monitored. The council then consulted on the re-introduction of traffic calming measures, but found that there was significant opposition to their specific proposals. Knowing the range of public opinion, senior roads officers met with local councillors and agreed a revised scheme with fewer speed cushions. At the time, they obtained legal advice that they did not need to consult again on the revised proposals, and the new traffic calming measures were installed.

Mr C was not living in the property when this happened, and when he returned he found that traffic volume and speeds had increased, and there was excessive noise in his home. He complained to the council about the changes, and made various information requests. He then complained to us that the council had not taken the appropriate steps when considering and implementing the new measures, and had failed to act on collected data which indicated that the measures that they had put in place were inadequate.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as our investigation found that the consultation was extensive and appropriate. We also found that since the measures were introduced, council officers had examined the results of two further monitoring exercises and found no reason to amend the scheme. This was a decision for them to take as professionals, and not something that we could consider where there was no evidence of maladministration in the taking of the decision.

Summary

Mr C built a driveway at his property, which is at a junction, but was told by the council that he should not use the pedestrian dropped kerb there as access. As a result Mr C then applied for permission to construct an additional vehicular access away from the junction and requested that the council carry out work to drop the kerb. He then complained about the treatment he received from the council regarding the new driveway he had constructed at the junction and his dropped kerb application. He felt that the council had imposed inappropriate conditions on the consent for the dropped kerb application. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that there had been a considerable amount of correspondence with the council on the matter and Mr C had gained the impression that the council had changed the conditions. However, based on the available evidence we were satisfied that the council had explained why the works they outlined were required and we did not uphold that complaint. We did uphold his complaint about complaints handling, as we found that the council had (in line with their complaints procedure) escalated Mr C's complaint straight to stage two of their process. They had not, however, told him about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that customers need to be informed as early as possible if their complaint is being escalated straight to stage two of their complaints process, and ensure they are notified of their right to complain to the SPSO;
• remind staff of the need to consider whether a customer should be contacted to discuss their complaint at stage two of the complaints process; and
• apologise to Mr C for their handling of his complaint.