Local Government

Summary

Ms C gave up her council tenancy in August 2012. Before she left, the council's clerk of works visited and pointed out damage to several doors which he said would need replacing. He advised it would be cheaper for her to arrange the work herself, which she did. After she left the property, she was told the work was not up to standard and was issued with a bill for the work. She queried this but got no reply. The bill was issued again, some seven or eight months later. She contacted the council again and then complained that she had been charged for these items and about the delay in contacting her about the bill.

At the initial inspection of the property, Ms C had signed a declaration that she would repair the items identified, that the list was not exhaustive (ie that further repairs might be identified at the change of tenancy inspection) and that failure to undertake the repairs would result in the council carrying them out and billing her (this is known as recharging). The change of tenancy inspection that took place after she left the property identified a number of repairs, including to the work that Ms C had arranged and paid to have done. The council said that the work was not an acceptable standard and had required repair/replacement. They provided us with photographic evidence in support of this. They wrote to Ms C after the inspection setting out the rechargeable repairs, but it appeared that Ms C did not respond to this.

It is not for us to question the council's decision about whether the work was done to an acceptable standard. That is a decision that they were entitled to take and we found no evidence of administrative error in the way they reached it. Ms C had signed the declaration and the council had written to her after the final inspection with a list of rechargeable repairs, which Ms C did not appear to have questioned at that time. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint but we did make a recommendation, as we considered that the council could have made it clearer that if the work was not done to a standard they considered acceptable, they would then carry it out and issue an account for the cost. We upheld her complaint about the delay in contacting her because, in the absence of an explanation, the delay was unreasonable. However, as the council had already apologised for the distress caused, acknowledged that they could have provided her with better support and advice and reduced the bill, we decided that no further recommendations were required.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider altering the pre-termination inspection paperwork to make it clearer to tenants that failure to have the work done to a standard acceptable to the council would result in the council carrying out the work and issuing an account for the cost.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the council's involvement in the naming of a nearby property. The name chosen by the other owner – and approved by the council – was almost identical to the name of Mrs C’s property. This caused problems with the mail, of which Mrs C became aware when she received letters for the owner of the second property.

The council explained that they check naming requests when they receive an application. However, in this case, their checks had not identified Mrs C’s property, because her property name consisted of a single word. The second application had a space in the name, although otherwise the name was identical to that of Mrs C’s property. The council acknowledged that their checks failed to identify the similarity. However, they explained that they had alerted Royal Mail to the situation to prevent future mix-ups. They also outlined their legal role in naming and numbering streets, and explained that their house naming policy aimed to prevent confusion or duplication of names. However, as property owners are responsible for property names the council said they could not legally force a change. We upheld Mrs C’s complaint as the council had failed to identify Mrs C’s property in line with their policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their administrative oversight in processing the naming request;
• confirm the steps that they have taken to ensure that when considering future naming requests this kind of error is not repeated; and
• contact the other owner, in light of our findings, to explore whether or not they would be willing to amend their house name.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the council investigated her complaint about how a school had treated her child (who had been identified as having additional support needs). She said that she felt the investigation was biased and unfair.

Our investigation found that in looking into Mrs C's complaint the council gathered information from only one source, the school's head teacher. They explained that this was because other sources were not available when they investigated the complaint (during the school summer holidays). We concluded, however, that this meant the council did not demonstrate that their investigation was balanced and reasonable. They could not contact people with potentially relevant information during the holidays but, instead of postponing the investigation until all parties could be contacted, they decided to go ahead with it. We took the view that it would have been helpful for them to have obtained evidence from an external support service and teaching staff who had provided ongoing support to Mrs C's child and who had been involved in a review meeting that Mrs C had found unsatisfactory.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise that they did not carry out a reasonable investigation into the complaints; and
• ensure that information made available for members of the public is fully in line with the content of their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C said he was experiencing problems with noise in his house. He said that although the council had installed soundproofing boards there were gaps, and a sound test had shown that there was a weak spot in the living room next to the window. He said the council had told him that his kitchen met the current standards for soundproofing and that his living room was just below the standard, so they were not prepared to carry out any further work.

In response to our enquiries the council said that there were no building regulations on standards for noise transference on older properties such as Mr C's. Although they noted that there would always be an element of day-to-day living noise in such properties, they said they were prepared to arrange for an inspection of the gaps in the boarding and to carry out any necessary repairs. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that an officer from building services inspects the gaps in the boarding and carries out any necessary repair work, as promised by the chief executive.

Summary

When Mr C was sent to prison, he terminated his council tenancy and gave the council a mandate to dispose of his personal property to reduce an amount of money that he owed them. The council put a number of items up for sale in a local auction house, and put the net proceeds towards Mr C’s rent arrears, but he still owed council tax. After Mr C was released from prison, he returned to the area and shortly afterwards the council sent him a statement of his council tax arrears. Mr C then made an information request about the disposal of his property. He had compiled an inventory from memory and believed that his property had been sold for an eighth of its value. After the council responded to his information request he complained to them, then to us, that the process used in disposing of his property was inappropriate.

We found that the council had disposed of Mr C’s property before the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and related regulations came into effect. As he terminated the tenancy and did not abandon it, the council had not needed to compile an inventory of his belongings. Our investigation also found that the terms of Mr C’s mandate to the council were wide ranging and unequivocal. However, we upheld his complaint, as we took the view that they should have written to him in prison to account for the discharge of his mandate, advised him of the proceeds of the sale and told him that these had not been enough to clear his debts.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to write to him after the disposal of his property and inform him of the consequences for his indebtedness.

Summary

Ms C had had to leave her accommodation, and was looking for a tenancy, when she learned that she was pregnant. The council provided short-term accommodation and assessed her as being unintentionally homeless, in priority need with a local connection and entitled to settled accommodation. Meanwhile, she was offered temporary accommodation. After her child was born Ms C received two offers of permanent housing, one from the council and one from a housing association. She refused both. The council did not accept that Ms C’s refusal of the second offer was reasonable. However, because of issues in handling her appeal, they, unusually, made a further offer, which Ms C also refused. The council again regarded her grounds of refusal to have been unreasonable. They said that they had discharged their duty to Ms C as a homeless person and that she would have to leave the temporary accommodation. She complained to us that the council had failed to take appropriate account of the representations she made in appealing the third offer.

Our investigation found, however, that the council had given full consideration to Ms C’s representations. In particular, they had ensured that these had been properly assessed, by both an external agency and by them, using a multi-agency assessment matrix. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint, but in view of her circumstances, we did make a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• meet with Ms C at an early date to explore options for her early rehousing in either socially rented or private accommodation, and to discuss whether she might be assisted through initiatives such as the rent deposit guarantee scheme.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s revision of his council tax liability on his former shared property and was unhappy that they were pursuing him for this. He said he had not received an adequate explanation of the amount owed or an adequate response to his complaints.

Mr C initially visited the council's office for an explanation and, when he did not receive a satisfactory response, he wrote to the council twice. He did not receive a response to either letter and so he submitted a complaint. In responding to the complaint, the council apologised to Mr C for not responding to his letters and for the fact he was not able to obtain an explanation when he visited their office. They said they would raise this with the office manager.

The council went on to provide Mr C with what we considered to be a clear explanation of the amount owed. They provided a detailed breakdown of his account and explained why they were obliged to pursue both Mr C and his former flatmate for the debt. As they appeared to have managed Mr C's account in line with the relevant rules and procedures, and as we saw no evidence that he had been charged an incorrect level of council tax, we did not uphold this element of his complaint.

As the council had not provided an explanation when Mr C first contacted them, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. However, as they had already acknowledged their failings, apologised to Mr C, and taken steps to try to prevent a repeat occurrence, as well as offering a clear explanation of the outstanding balance, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C owns a flat which he rents out. The flat is in a tenement that was the subject of a statutory notice in respect of roof repairs, served on owners in February 2007 under the provisions of The City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. In May 2008, owners were told that in the absence of any agreement by owners to undertake the necessary works, the council had appointed a firm of surveyors to administer these. In October 2009 the surveyors told owners that the contract had been awarded, and told them the estimated costs, start date and duration. The works were carried out by October 2010. During the contract, the surveyors made regular site visits, paid out progressive instalments of the contract fee and sent a number of update newsletters to owners. Accounts for the share of the costs were sent to owners in December 2012.

Mr C had not received any of the previous correspondence, and said that he only became aware of the works when his tenant forwarded the invoice. He made information requests to the council, and complained to them. He then complained to us that the council failed to take reasonable steps to notify him of the statutory notice served on his property, and to demonstrate that they followed their own procedures when evaluating and controlling the works.

Our investigation found that the council and their agents had sent the relevant letters to Mr C's flat to let him know about the works, as they had no alternative address for him. They had also responded to Mr C’s requests for information. Although he was not satisfied, the evidence we saw demonstrated that the surveyors administering the contract on behalf of the council had properly controlled and evaluated work through regular site visits, and had sought to keep all owners updated. In the light of these findings, we did not uphold the complaint as the council's actions, and those of the surveyors acting on their behalf, were reasonable. As, however, we have commented on the limitations of the council’s database of owners in other complaints, we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• update the Ombudsman on the outcome of their attempts to access the landlord registration database, for the purpose of identifying the important group of non-resident owners of properties.

Summary

Ms C raised objections with the council about the proposed building of a house in the area beyond her garden. One of her objections was in relation to the distance between her house and the proposed house. A council report to the planning committee said that revisions to the application had ensured a minimum separation distance of 15 metres from the nearest house. The committee considered and approved the application. Ms C complained to the council that there were less than 15 metres between her house and the proposed house and that no planning conditions had been made to address this. The council's response acknowledged that the distance quoted in the report was incorrect and apologised for this but noted that the scale drawings showed the correct distances and had been available at the committee meeting.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who reviewed the information, including the committee report and layout plan. He said that accurate distance statements existed elsewhere in the report and in the drawings, and explained that it was clear from the papers presented to the committee that the proposed development was not square on to Ms C's property. His view was that the committee was most unlikely to have been misled by the error.

The council had acknowledged the error and, therefore, we upheld the complaint. However, in light of the fact that the council had already apologised to Ms C, and that the adviser felt that it was most unlikely that the committee would have been misled, we decided that no recommendations were needed.

Summary

Ms C, who was a homeless applicant, was offered and accepted the tenancy of a council house. She subsequently reported a number of defects and made a number of requests for repairs, most significantly with respect to smells in her wet shower room, the operation of the central heating, a leaking roof and poor drainage in the rear garden, before applying for a transfer some two months after moving in. Ms C complained that the council unreasonably refused to carry out remedial work to bring her home up to the required housing standards.

Our investigation found that Ms C had accepted the house on the basis that it met her personal requirements, and the council explained that when it was allocated to her they considered it to have been of a lettable standard. After she moved in, Ms C had made a number of requests for repairs, and other repairs were requisitioned by council officers. We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found no evidence that the house did not meet the requisite letting standard when allocated to Ms C or that remedial work was required to bring it up to standard.