Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his repair request after he reported a leaking bath. He told us that the council had installed a new bath at his property, but it moved when he was standing in it to shower. He also said that there was a gap between the bath and the tiles, which allowed water to penetrate. He wanted the council to replace the remaining tiles in his bathroom with waterproof boarding. Mr C said the council had taken too long to come and assess the repair and that the repair they proposed was inadequate.

We found that the council had acted reasonably when Mr C reported dampness in his bathroom. They sent a maintenance officer to the property within two days and decided that the repair Mr C wanted was not warranted. The council offered to repair a section of flooring under the bath and to reseal around the bath, but Mr C had refused to allow this repair to be carried out. When Mr C later reported a leak in the bathroom, the council responded within a day and a leak at the sink was identified and repaired. We found the council had acted reasonably and in accordance with their policy on repairs. We concluded that, although Mr C was entitled to hold and express his view about the kind of repair required, that it was ultimately for the council to determine how best to carry this out.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council charged her for work carried out at her former home after she left it. Our investigation found, however, that Miss C had not in fact complied with the terms of her tenancy agreement when she left the property, and that the council had to resort to their abandonment procedure to bring the tenancy to an end. They found the garden in an unacceptable state and had to carry out works to clear it and make it safe. We found that the council had acted reasonably, and in accordance with their policies and procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's administration of his application for housing benefit was unreasonable. He felt, for various reasons, that they had made unreasonable demands for information from him and his wife. Because their circumstances had changed, he and his wife were asked to complete a case review form. As a result of the information they included on the form, the council asked for further information about the accounts he and his wife had their state pensions paid into. Mr C was unhappy about having to provide them with this and did not send it at first. The council had given an interim award of housing benefit, but stopped it when they did not receive the further information they had requested. When Mr C provided it, the council processed his application and backdated the award.

After considering all the relevant paperwork, we did not find any evidence that the council had administered Mr C's application unreasonably. Under the relevant regulations (the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006), they were entitled to ask for this information. Although there were a couple of instances where the council could have been clearer about the information they wanted, they provided clear and correct information to Mr C at least eight times. Unfortunately, it was the delay in providing the council with that information that caused the delay in him and his wife receiving their housing benefit award.

Summary

Mrs C's council tax benefit claim was identified for review and the council wrote to her asking for information. Mrs C complained about the way they handled the claim, complaining that they had not administered it in line with the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006. She questioned the frequency with which she was being asked to provide payslips, and said she thought that it would be easier to calculate once a year using her P60 and business accounts, in line with the Regulations. She told us that after she complained before, there had been an agreement that she would be assessed every 12 months, but the council had now cancelled the benefit because she questioned why they wanted payslips so frequently. She also questioned why the claim was identified for a review, and the notice period for providing information.

After investigating her concerns, we were satisfied that the council's actions were reasonable and in line with the Regulations and the Department for Work and Pensions best practice guidance. We saw no evidence that anything went wrong in the council's handling of the claim, and considered it was reasonable in the circumstances for the council to request proof of earnings when they did, within the deadlines they did, and that they had explained on a number of occasions why they were doing this. We found that the council took Mrs C's concerns seriously, fully investigated, took appropriate action to try to resolve her complaint, and fully explained their position. Finally, we were satisfied that the council maintained adequate records in connection with the administration of the claim when she complained before

Summary

Mr C and his wife owned a flat in a tenement block. The owners of the block next door knew that a chimney-head on their building was deteriorating, but had done nothing about it. When three years later lumps of masonry fell on to the pavement, the council acted immediately under section 29(3) of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 to make the chimney-head safe and prevent further danger to the public. The chimney-head next door had to be taken down. When this happened, it turned out that it was in fact connected to the chimney-head on Mr C's block, and it also had dangerous defects. The council got a quote to take down the chimney-head on Mr C's block and rebuild both. Arrangements were also made for another contractor nominated by the co-owners in Mr C's block to access scaffolding to let the owners there instruct works separately. The contractor, however, did not turn up and the council then instructed the works on the basis of the quotation they had obtained. The chimney-heads were rebuilt from the same bases, but contained inside a single casing.

When the apportioned bills for the work were issued, Mr C and other owners in his block disputed them and he eventually complained to the council. When he was unhappy with their response, Mr C brought his complaints to us. We did not uphold three of these - that the council failed to explain to Mr C his legal rights, failed to consult with him over the emergency repair, and unreasonably combined the two chimney-heads into one structure. However, we upheld his complaint that the council did not provide him with estimates for the repair, and we made recommendations aimed at improving communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that in similar situations in the future they provide owners with information on the legislation under which they are acting and refer them to the relevant section of their website; and
• ensure that, in similar future situations, decisions taken orally on re-instatement work are confirmed in writing to interested parties.

Summary

Mr C entered into pre-application discussions with the council with a view to building a house behind his property. About three months later, after receiving an email from an area planning officer, Mr C submitted an application for planning consent. This was the subject of a 'report of handling' which, in terms of the council's procedures, was put before local councillors who had the ability to refer the matter to a committee for a decision. The councillors did not refer the application, and it was left to council officers to determine the application under delegated powers. They refused the application. Mr C could then have asked for the matter to be placed before the local review board, but before requesting this he complained to the council about the decision. He said that the council planning officers did not provide reasonable advice at the pre-application stage, and that the council's report of handling was not reasonably fit for purpose.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the pre-application advice given to Mr C was reasonable. The adviser also said that he was satisfied that the report of handling was reasonably fit for purpose. He noted that the council had admitted to one error but he agreed that this would not have altered the officers' recommendation for refusal or misled the councillors who might otherwise have called in the application to be decided by a committee.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not appropriately handled a planning application for an extension to an existing quarry. In particular, he complained that the public and neighbours to the site had not been suitably consulted and notified of the application, that the consent was at odds with an existing planning consent for the site, that the applicant had not provided all the information required and that he was not able to make representations in person to the planning committee.

Our investigation found that the quarry has existing planning consent for mineral extraction and subsequent land fill. The application to which these complaints related was for an extension to the mineral extraction to one side of the area that already had consent for such extraction. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the application had been appropriately notified through the local press, and that neither an environmental impact assessment nor pre-application consultation was necessary. The adviser also noted that there were shortfalls in the site plan provided, but that this was probably because the council already had plans from a previous application. He said that the council had were not required to make all documents on an application publicly available, and the application had been dealt with appropriately in relation to the plans and information that were considered. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint, but we made a recommendation to the council to ensure they have all the plans required for future planning applications.

The planning application was determined under delegated powers, and this meant that the council's planning committee were not required to consider the application. The process was conducted according to council policy, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that he should have been able to make representation to the committee.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that plans submitted with a planning application are sufficient to satisfy the terms of Part 3 Regulation 9 section 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development and Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.

Summary

After damaging her car tyres on a pothole in the road, Mrs C submitted a claim to the council's road services department. She was told that it would be investigated and passed to the council's insurers, who would contact her. As she heard nothing Mrs C asked for an update and was advised there was a backlog. She complained to the council about the time it was taking to process her claim, highlighting that their published guidelines said that they would pass claims to their insurers within 21 days. The council apologised for the delay, and said the claim had been passed to the insurers.

Mrs C was then told a few days later that her claim had been forwarded to the council's insurance service for onward submission to their insurers. Mrs C complained to the council that this contradicted what she had previously been told, and she complained again about the delay. The council said that the delays were due to staff absence and pressure of work, but that there was no evidence that she had been lied to about her claim. Mrs C remained unhappy and complained to us about the delays in processing her claim and handling her complaint, and about the council's communications.

We upheld all of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that it took the council more than three times longer than their published timescales to process the claim to the point of passing it to their insurers. As the council had acknowledged, although it was due to numbers and pressure of work, this was unacceptable. We noted, however, that the council are now processing claims normally within timescales. We also found that the council exceeded their own complaints handling timescales by a few days, which appeared to be due to how information was logged on their complaints system.

Finally we found it unacceptable that the council did not communicate with Mrs C between receiving the claim and her contact to find out what was happening, especially in light of their published timescales for passing claims to their insurers. We also found that the council's communications, while later clarified, did at first lead to confusion about what stage the claim was at.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise that they did not respond to Mrs C's complaint within their published timescales;
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure timelines for complaints handling are met;
• apologise for not updating Mrs C much earlier about the delays with her claim, and for the lack of clarity in some of their communications; and
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure claimants are kept updated and that clear explanations are provided.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mrs A about tenancy charges raised by the council when Mrs A terminated her former tenancy and moved to a new house. There was no pre-termination inspection but after Mrs A left, the council arranged for removal and re-instatement works to take away fittings etc. Mrs A was told that she would have to pay for these, and was given an estimate of £620 excluding VAT. Mrs A replied saying that she considered the works were excessive and disputed several of the items listed. She received no response, and the council's next contact was more than six months later when she received an invoice for £867.11. She asked for a more detailed breakdown, then complained to the council about the charges.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council failed to inspect Mrs A's former home before she left it and that their position at the time on when or whether such inspections should be carried out was inconsistent. We also found that there was unreasonable delay in sending Mrs A the invoice for repairs and that the council had not explained why the final invoice figure exceeded the estimate by so much. We also found that they failed to deal with correspondence according to their published processes and procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs A for their failings in handling the complaint; and
• reconsider, in the light of the information in our decision notice, whether there are grounds to reduce the sum claimed in the invoice.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to his complaints and did not adequately investigate and respond to his concerns about the actions of a school with regard to the alleged bullying of his son. He said that he was very concerned about his son's welfare as a result of the alleged incidents.

We upheld his complaints, as our investigation found that although the council apologised and gave various reasons for delays, the complaints process took an unacceptably long time to complete. It was only after we contacted them that the council eventually gave a final response, nearly seven months after Mr C first complained. Even then, it did not address all the issues and was incomplete, although they later gave him additional information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the unreasonable time taken to manage the entire process of responding to Mr C's complaints;
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure timelines for complaints handling are met and appropriate cases are given priority;
• apologise for not adequately investigating and responding to Mr C's concerns;
• share the findings of our investigation with appropriate staff; and
• consider how to ensure school staff are fully aware of the anti-bullying strategy and the investigation process for allegations of bullying.