Local Government

  • Case ref:
    201304454
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    statutory notices

Summary

In 2002, Mr and Mrs C purchased a flat in Edinburgh. The flat was the subject of a statutory repairs notice the following year, but Mr and Mrs C said that they were unaware of this as the council had not served the notice on them, but on the previous owner. They told us that they had seen scaffolding go up on part of the property, but the first they knew about repairs being undertaken under a statutory notice was when they received a bill for their share of the costs in 2013. Mr and Mrs C questioned the delay in issuing the invoice, and the costs. They complained that the council had failed to conduct conservation works on their property in such a way that they could evidence that their invoice was justified, and that the council did not handle their complaint in accordance with the complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that, although there was a long delay between the work starting and the issue of the invoice, there was evidence that the council sent notices about this to Mr and Mrs C's property. These were addressed to the owner or occupier, even if they were not then passed to Mr and Mrs C. Although this was unfortunate, we took into account that Mr and Mrs C were aware that there was scaffolding on the building, and we considered that it would have been reasonable for them to have asked neighbours and/or the council about this. Although Mr and Mrs C thought the documentation was inadequate, the council had provided them with the final account, detailing the works. We did not uphold their complaint, as we concluded that, whilst the documentation was sparse, Mr and Mrs C's complaint came down to a dispute about their liability for their share of the costs, and we were not able to adjudicate on this. Where we had found fault was not with the contract, but with the delay in issuing the account. The council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this, and we decided that it would not be reasonable to ask for a reduction in the invoice, as Mr and Mrs C's liability had not increased as a result of the delay.

We upheld the complaint that the council did not handle Mr and Mrs C's complaint in accordance with the council's procedure. We found that it was not dealt with appropriately in terms of timescale, agreement of the complaint or what was being sought as an outcome. We also found that there was a lack of updates and Mr and Mrs C were not asked to agree the timescale for investigation of the matter being extended.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • issue a formal apology to Mr and Mrs C for the council's failure in their service standards for complaints handling.
  • Case ref:
    201302559
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    complaints handling

Summary

Mrs C had made an insurance claim against the council following work carried out as part of a flood prevention scheme. Although her claim now appeared to be in the process of being properly addressed, she was unhappy about how her complaint about the delays in doing so had been handled. She complained to us about this, explaining in detail the ways in which she said the council had failed to deal with the complaint properly.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint, as our investigation found that the council had handled her concerns poorly. We found evidence of failures to honour commitments and assurances they had given, over-reliance on standard acknowledgements of emails, timescales that were largely meaningless, and a failure to properly investigate and respond to the handling issues and complaints which Mrs C had very clearly set out. The council also failed to discuss Mrs C's complaint with her, and in their correspondence they failed to address, or respond to, the complaints handling issues she had raised. They also did not give her the 'upheld' outcome that she deserved based on the evidence that should have been available to them, had they looked at her complaint properly. Despite acknowledging to Mrs C that there appeared to be a need to review their administrative procedures, the council's response to our enquiries did not say if any review has taken place, or if a review was planned. We made a recommendation specifically about this, relating it to the model complaints handling procedure (CHP) provided for local government by our Complaints Standards Authority.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • apologise to Mrs C for their poor handling of her complaint to include specific mention of their failure to properly investigate the complaint and their failure to follow their complaints handling policy and procedures;
  • review their administrative procedures in relation to dealing with complaints correspondence;
  • provide the Ombudsman with a report which gives an assurance from senior management that they are satisfied that their complaints handling procedures meet the requirements of the CHP; and
  • update Mrs C on the current situation on the underlying issue of the delay in her insurance claim, which was the cause of her complaint.
  • Case ref:
    201301343
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    statutory notices

Summary

Mr C told us that he had received a bill from the council for repair work on his tenement, carried out under an emergency statutory notice that the council had issued. He said that this was the first communication he had received about this, and that there was a four and a half year gap between the work being undertaken and when he and other owners were told about the cost. He said that neither he nor his neighbours were notified by statutory notice that work was to be carried out. He also said that when he first raised concerns about this and queried his share of the costs, the council told him that this would be investigated and that they would put the demand for payment on hold until this was done. However, during their investigations he was sent letters demanding payment. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which the council investigated his complaint.

When we investigated this, the council acknowledged that there was no evidence that they had issued a statutory notice to Mr C. They also explained why the invoice for the completed work was not issued earlier, and we noted that they had already apologised to Mr C for this. We upheld Mr C's complaints about the failure to issue the statutory notice and about the demand for payment, and made a recommendation. As, however, we found that the council's investigation into the costs had been appropriate, we did not uphold that complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • consider whether, given the failure identified, they should rebate part of the fee levied against Mr C for his share of the costs of the council's administration on the contract.
  • Case ref:
    201300602
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    local housing allowance and council tax benefit

Summary

Mr C, who is a landlord, said that he told the council in March 2012 that his tenant, who was in receipt of housing benefit, had not paid his rent and asked them to intervene in this. He complained that the council failed to take action, and did not deal properly with his correspondence and complaints.

We did not uphold his complaint that the council failed to act in March 2012, as Mr C was unable to provide us with any evidence that he had been in touch with them about this then. The first evidence of contact was in June 2012, when he sent them an email about it. The council said that this was when he first brought the issue to their attention. Despite extensive enquiries, we did not find any documentary evidence that Mr C contacted the council earlier than this, so we were unable to conclude that they failed to take appropriate action.

We did, however, uphold his complaint about correspondence and complaints handling. The evidence showed that Mr C contacted the council on numerous occasions over an 11-month period with his concerns about his tenant and communicated with various teams in the revenue and benefits department. In general, the council did respond to his communications. However, we were critical of them for failing to confirm their understanding of his concerns with him at an early stage and for failing to explain the services the different parts of the council could provide. They also did not advise Mr C of the outcome of their initial investigation when he asked that they start to make housing benefit payments directly to him, as landlord, and of any right of appeal against this decision. Mr C's first formal complaint was not considered appropriately under the council's complaints procedure and he was not advised how to escalate his complaint. There was also an unreasonable delay of two months in responding to a letter from Mr C's MSP and the council did not send updates or explain the delay.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • ensure that they advise a landlord requesting a review of a housing benefit decision of the outcome of the review and of any statutory right of appeal;
  • ensure that staff deal with formal complaints under the council's complaints procedure appropriately and advise complainants how to escalate their complaint, should they remain dissatisfied;
  • consider making a payment to Mr C of an amount equivalent to the June 2012 housing benefit payment; and
  • provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified in this case.
  • Case ref:
    201304563
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    South Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    No decision reached
  • Subject:
    complaints handling (incl social work complaints procedures)

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son that the council had decided to discontinue their consideration of the complaints that she had submitted.

During our consideration of the matter we obtained information from the council and, based upon this, we decided it was not appropriate for us to consider the matter further.

  • Case ref:
    201205173
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    Scottish Borders Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    building standards

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a building warrant and completion certificate issued for their property in 2001. Their concerns related to the foul drainage and surface water drainage systems at the property. Mr and Mrs C complained that the completion certificate should not have been issued as the drainage system built did not comply with the building warrant. In particular, they complained that the drainage system was not wholly contained within their property. They also complained about the council's handling of their representations.

During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had considered and had responded to the issues raised by Mr and Mrs C. They had explained that changes could be made to the plans without the need for an amendment to the building warrant, as long as the new layout complied with the relevant regulations, and that the building regulations did not require drainage systems to be wholly contained within individual properties. The council confirmed that it was the professional judgement of officers that the requirements of the building regulations had been met, and that the revised drainage had been inspected and tested. We were also satisfied that the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations.

  • Case ref:
    201302395
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    Perth and Kinross Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    handling of application (complaints by applicants)

Summary

Mr C applied for listed building consent to replace the original sash and case windows and skylights with double-glazed units of the same design. The owners of a neighbouring property also applied for consent for similar changes. Mr C complained that, whilst his neighbours were quickly granted permission to upgrade their windows, his application was rejected. He did not feel that the council considered his application fairly, or on a consistent basis with his neighbours' application.

Our investigation found that the two applications could not be directly compared. The neighbouring property's windows had been replaced in the past with units that were not in keeping with the original design of the building. Guidance issued by Historic Scotland promotes the preservation of original designs and materials and the council, appropriately, approved the neighbour's plans to reintroduce windows that were of a similar design to what would originally have been used. In Mr C's case, the council were not convinced that his windows could not be refurbished and kept in their original form. We were satisfied that on more than one occasion they invited Mr C to provide evidence that replacement was required, but he was unable to do so.

Mr C had pointed out that he appealed the council's decision to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), and it was ultimately overturned. The DPEA decided that the Historic Scotland guidance did not have to be applied rigorously in Mr C's case, as his application provided an opportunity to bring uniformity back to an arrangement of windows of mixed design. We viewed this, however, as an example of the planning system working effectively, rather than of the council acting inappropriately. Although there was an initial misunderstanding about the age of some of the windows, we did not find that this affected the council's decision, and we found no evidence that it was based on flawed or incorrect information. Rather, it was based on and supported by Historic Scotland's guidance.

  • Case ref:
    201204866
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    Perth and Kinross Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    right to buy

Summary

Mr C had lived in his parents' council house for many years with his wife (Mrs C), but did not become the tenant until after his father died in February 2007. This was after the modernised right to buy a council house was introduced in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. This reduced the maximum discount that could be given (to people who became tenants after September 2002) to 35 percent or £15,000, whichever was less. When Mr C took over the tenancy he asked a council officer if he could apply to buy the house. She wrongly told him that as a new tenant with a modified right to buy, he would have to wait five years. Four years later, in 2011, Mr C wrote to a senior housing officer asking again about this. In replying, the senior officer repeated the first officer's error that Mr C had to wait five years before applying. Seven months after that, Mr C discussed the matter with a housing manager, but they did not correct the previous misinformation. The council then began a consultation exercise on designating the whole of the council's area as having pressured area status (removing a tenant's general right to buy under the modernised scheme) and this came into place on 1 February 2012. Under these circumstances, should they wish to sell a house, the council have to apply to Scottish Ministers for consent for a voluntary sale.

Mr C then found out that he could have applied to buy his home as soon as he became a tenant. He formally complained to the council that he had been given incorrect information three times, and that the general right to buy had since been removed. They upheld his complaint; and eventually agreed with Mr C that he would allow access to have his home valued, and that they would be prepared to make the case for consent to sell to him at the £15,000 maximum discount with an allowance for rent paid from March 2011. Mr C, however, thought that the remedy for his complaint did not go far enough and that the allowance for rent should extend back to when he became the tenant, and brought the complaint to us. We upheld his complaint, and our recommendation reflects Mr C's concerns about the redress he had been offered.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • after first obtaining Mr C's agreement and a supporting statement from him, present a case to Scottish Ministers for consent for a voluntary sale based on the estimated 26 February 2007 market value, with discount of £15,000 and an allowance for rent paid to date of completion of sale; and
  • in the event that the Scottish Ministers do not consent to any sale of the property as outlined in recommendation one above, that the council make an ex-gratia payment to Mr and Mrs C to reflect the terms of the loss they have incurred financially, this being the rent paid from 26 February 2007 to date.
  • Case ref:
    201301990
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    North Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    council tax

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had incorrectly advised him about his entitlement to council tax exemption and had not administered his application for an exemption properly. Mr C told us he had purchased a house from a builder but that the building work on the property had not been completed. After buying the property, Mr C told the council that he would not be able to move in until works were complete and requested that the appropriate exemptions to council tax be applied. The council said that Mr C did not meet the criteria for a council tax exemption because more than twelve months had elapsed between the last day of the previous occupancy and the date of his entry into the property.

Mr C complained to us that he had complied with advice from the council, but that the evidence he had submitted in support of his application for an exemption had been ignored. He said that they rejected his application, referring to a category he had not applied for; had not acknowledged the contradictions in the advice he had received, nor had they accepted that his documentation had not been processed.

Our investigation found that Mr C had made two council tax exemption applications under different criteria. The council had considered both of these in good time, and had correctly applied the council tax (Exemption Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 and the council tax exemption procedures. We found no evidence that they had provided Mr C with incorrect and misleading advice, or that his applications had been administered inappropriately. We also found they had responded in good time to Mr C's initial complaint, although there was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation about this delay, noting that the council had apologised to Mr C for this before he brought his complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • examine the circumstances for the delay in response to Mr C's stage 2 complaint (which was sent to a general mail box) and advise the Ombudsman on the steps taken to avoid such a recurrence.
  • Case ref:
    201304759
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    Glasgow City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Resolved, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    cleansing/public conveniences/streets and stairs

Summary

Mr C complained that the road outside his property was flooding in moderate to heavy rainfall, and that this was affecting his property. He said that the council were failing to keep the road drains free of debris in his area.

When we made enquiries to the council about this, we found that they had taken appropriate action to address the problem, and we were satisfied that the complaint had been resolved.