Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to resolve a range of problems he had with the wet electric central heating system that they had installed in his property. These included leaking radiators; the boiler being too small, and not working; heating thermostats burning out; hot water not coming up to temperature; and the times at which the heating came on and off. He also complained that the cost of running the system was too high.

The council had responded to each maintenance request within their timescales for such repairs. They also arranged for the installers and the manufacturers of the system to visit Mr C and ensure that it was working appropriately. Their energy officer also visited to provide energy efficiency advice, and the council contacted an energy assistance organisation to provide Mr C with further information and advice, and to ensure that Mr C was on the correct electricity tariff. Mr C's property is also due to have additional insulation installed within the next year.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had responded appropriately to each of the maintenance issues raised, and had taken reasonable action to help him reduce electricity costs. We noted that they had involved a range of agencies trying to resolve Mr C's concerns, and found no evidence that the central heating system was not working appropriately.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council were seeking to recover council tax and penalty charges from her that related to the year 1999. She said that she had paid all outstanding debts and that, although she could not prove this, neither could the council prove that she did not make payment.

We considered the information she provided and information obtained from our enquiries to the council. Councils do not usually keep copies of all correspondence in respect of historic debts, and in this case the council were able to show us that they issued a council tax bill and reminders at the time, as required by the regulations. As they were able to show that Ms C was billed at the time, and as they had no record of payment being received, we found no evidence that they failed to comply with their responsibilities under the council tax regulations. As there was no evidence of administrative failure in the way this matter was dealt with, we could not uphold the complaint.

Summary

In 2007 Mr C was granted planning permission for a development. He understood that a social housing contribution was required to activate the permission and paid this. He never undertook the development and a subsequent planning application superceded it in 2011. By this point the council's policy had changed and social housing contributions were no longer sought. Mr C requested that his contribution be refunded to him. The council declined to make any refund and told Mr C that the contribution had been an alternative to a section 75 agreement being made (this is a legal agreement that covers financial contributions to meet services and infrastructure needs of the local community associated with a new development).

Mr C complained to us that the council had not advised him of the option to enter into a section 75 agreement. However, we did not uphold his complaint as our investigation found that among the evidence gathered in this case was a letter from him to the council indicating that he had been aware that the contribution was an alternative to entering into a section 75 agreement.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about actions of the social work department in relation to his son. He was dissatisfied with the council's responses and raised his complaints with us.

We decided that the council's responses to his complaints was not reasonable, as their letters were unclear on how appeal requests would be dealt with and did not respond to a specific enquiry that he made. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to his complaints correspondence; and
• ensure that information in complaints responses about appeals is clear.