Local Government

Summary

Ms C was registered with the council as homeless and was placed in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. She was unhappy with the standard of the accommodation and visited the council to complain as well as speaking to council officers on the phone. She said the accommodation was dirty and that the gas boiler was unsafe. She alleged residents were locked in at night and that a fellow resident was on a methadone programme. When she complained to us she told us that she was particularly unhappy that the council contacted the landlord following her complaint. She believed this allowed the landlord to make improvements to the property before the council inspected it. She said that this meant that, when inspected, the property was not in the condition it was when she stayed in it, and so ensured that her complaint was not upheld.

The council said that the landlord had shown them the appropriate safety certificates for the property and that it had passed an unannounced inspection. They had also been shown invoices for professional cleaning companies for both the interior of the property and the bed linen that was provided to Ms C. They acknowledged that the type of accommodation was not ideal, but said that on the date of Ms C's application it was the only accommodation they had available. They recognised homelessness was stressful for the individuals affected, and said staff had been reminded of the need to take the impact of homelessness into account when dealing with members of the public.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had phoned the manager of the accommodation due to Ms C’s concerns about not just the property, but also her fellow residents. They had told her when she visited the council offices that this would happen, before she had made a formal complaint. We found the council had investigated Ms C’s concerns appropriately and taken all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the property was safe and in an appropriate condition. They provided us with photographic evidence from their inspection to support this. We also found that, since Ms C’s complaint, they had recruited additional staff to their homelessness unit and increased the frequency of their inspections of temporary accommodation.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about unauthorised development activity at a property close to his. A retrospective planning application was submitted and recommended for approval, but was refused by the planning committee. Mr C complained to the council about various aspects of their handling of these matters, and when he was dissatisfied with the response he received he complained to us. We decided that most of his complaints were not matters we could consider as they related to his unhappiness with the council's actions rather than being complaints of maladministration or service failure (ie complaints that the council had handled this wrongly).

We did consider his complaint that the council's complaints handling was unreasonable because the chief executive did not provide specific evidence to support his statements about meetings held or the consideration given to the matter. We did not, however, uphold this, as we found that the chief executive responded directly to Mr C's complaints and gave reasons for his decisions, which we considered reasonable.

Summary

Mrs and Ms C told us that they registered for the council’s downsizing incentive scheme when it was first introduced, as they no longer needed a three bedroom house. (This was a scheme where tenants were offered a cash payment if they moved to a smaller house.) When they were offered their current property in June 2013 they expected to receive a payment and were shocked to be told that the scheme had ended. An article later appeared in the local press referring to the scheme ‘continuing’ because it had been a success.

Mrs and Ms C complained to the council. They said they felt penalised and discriminated against because they moved during a period when the council said the scheme was not in place. Mrs and Ms C said that had they known that it was to be continued later they could have made a more informed decision about moving house. In reply, the council said that the scheme ended on 31 March 2013 as there was no new money to keep it going. However, new funding later became available and officers decided to seek approval to introduce a new scheme. This was approved in September 2013 and the scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013. Mrs and Ms C then complained to us that the council unreasonably refused to make them a downsizing incentive payment when they moved, and did not reply to their correspondence within the published time limits for doing so.

When we investigated, the council told us that information about the scheme was available on the internet and on posters in council offices. Funding was made available for it on an annual basis, and it was suspended from 31 March 2013 because it could not be funded again at that time. We did not find any service failure or maladministration in the council's decision to suspend the scheme. This was a decision that they were entitled to make and as the scheme was suspended at the time Mrs and Ms C took up the new tenancy, the council’s decision not to make an incentive award was correct.

We understood, however, why Mrs and Ms C felt so aggrieved, and we were concerned that the council did not keep them, or other tenants who had applied for the scheme, directly informed about amendments to it. We also noted an inconsistency of language on the part of the council when referring to the scheme's status. We found no evidence at all of any correspondence with Mrs and Ms C on this matter, or that it was discussed with them when they were offered their current property. We upheld the complaint about the failure to respond, and took the view that putting information on the internet, or on posters in council offices was not sufficient in this case, especially as there must have been only a very limited number of tenants involved. We, therefore, made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their decision not to make a downsizing payment to Mrs and Ms C in view of their failure to keep them informed of the changes made to the scheme; and
• review their procedures and put in place measures to ensure that tenants are kept better informed in any future amendments to the scheme or any similar initiatives.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C objected to planning applications for a wind farm near their home. They then complained to the council that the planning service had not given appropriate consideration to the potential resulting impact on their amenity (enjoyment of their property or surroundings) from the wind turbines. Mr and Mrs C expressed particular concerns relating to the land they use for recreational activities as part of their property.

The council explained that they had given appropriate consideration to protecting Mr and Mrs C’s amenity and that the land in question, although owned by Mr and Mrs C, did not appear, on the balance of probability, to have a lawful use as domestic curtilage (the essential garden ground for the property).

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the actions taken by the council were in line with relevant guidance and that their response to Mr and Mrs C’s concerns was reasonable. We also found that it was reasonable that the council did not consider Mr and Mrs C’s land’s use as amenity ground when considering a planning application for the wind farm.

Summary

Mr C's property was included in the council's housing improvement programme, which involved comprehensive works. Mr C became unhappy after work started on his home, and following a Freedom of Information request about the programme, he complained that the contract was being undertaken in-house, without going out to tender. As part of his complaint, he asked that his concerns about this were brought to the attention of council members. Mr C also complained that he had not been consulted in advance about the proposed work in accordance with the council's Tenant Handbook.

Our investigation found that the requirement for the council to go out to compulsory competitive tendering had ended in 2003, and the decision became a delegated matter. The programme had been approved by the full council and the decision that the refurbishment works would not be put out to tender was made by the Head of Service under delegated powers. We did not find anything to suggest that the council's advice about this to Mr C in response to his complaint was incorrect, nor that there was a requirement to bring his concerns to the attention of council members. However, we saw no evidence that his request for this to be done had been responded to, and we made a relevant recommendation.

With regard to Mr C's complaint about lack of consultation, the council acknowledged that their Tenant Handbook did say that individual tenants would be consulted about the programme. However, this was not done because it was not considered appropriate. The council provided evidence that confirmed that a range of methods had been used to provide tenants with advice about what would happen and when. However, because it was unclear how the decision not to carry out individual consultation was arrived at, we were unable to conclude that it had been taken appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reply to Mr C about his request that council members were made aware of his concerns about tendering for the housing improvement programme; and
• consider Mr C's comments about consultation as part of a procedural review.

Summary

Mr C represented a number of people at a planning appeal hearing after the council issued a planning enforcement notice about advertising hoardings that they said had been erected without permission. He said that as part of that hearing, the council deliberately misled the Scottish Government's Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals with regard to the number of enforcement notices served, and also about their own policy on the sponsorship of roundabouts. He thought that this incorrect information may well have prejudiced the outcome for his clients.

During our investigation, we obtained independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers. The investigation found that while internal email exchanges were confusing and conflicting about the number of enforcement notices served, there was no evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead, as Mr C had suggested. We accepted that the emails concerned represented council officers' reflections in the aftermath of the planning hearing but before a decision had been given. They were not intended to contradict the council's formal position but were made in anticipation of a possible finding against the council and what might then have to be addressed. Although we did not make any formal recommendations, we did point out to the council that this presented a confusing picture and that their policy should be clear to the public.

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.

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.

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.

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.