Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, and did not reasonably consider other options for the site.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold either of the two elements of Ms C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate, and that other options had been reasonably considered.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, did not reasonably consider other options for the site, and did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of the three elements of Mrs C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate; the other options had been reasonably considered; and the council's reasons for selecting the preferred site were set out in the officers' reports and committee minutes.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council failed to provide them with a house that was suitably sound insulated, and failed to take effective action when they reported antisocial behaviour by a number of neighbours.

The council explained that they carried out appropriate tests and could confirm that the house met the relevant standards in terms of sound insulation. They also explained that they had taken action in line with their policies in response to all Mr C and Ms C's reports of antisocial behaviour.

We did not uphold the complaint as, from our review of the evidence, we found that the council carried out appropriate testing on Mr C and Ms C's home which complied with the relevant technical specifications. In addition, we reviewed their actions in response to Mr C and Ms C's complaints of antisocial behaviour and established that each report was investigated and, where corroboration could be obtained, action was indeed taken, in line with their antisocial behaviour policies.

Summary

Mr C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained to us on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) about the council's handling of her tenancy of a council property. Ms A had accepted and signed the tenancy agreement but handed the keys back the next day with a signed notice of termination of tenancy. Ms A was unhappy that, although she had the keys to the property for less than 24 hours, she then received an invoice for a full month's rent. She said that despite signing both the agreement and the notice of termination which had stated that 28 days' notice was required, she had been verbally assured that she would not have to pay the one month's notice. Ms A was also unhappy that a council tax debt for the property was referred to sheriff officers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that there were no notes of the conversations between the council and Ms A. The council said that they had not given her such verbal assurance, and that the 28 days' notice would only be waived in very exceptional circumstances and would need the approval of senior management. Senior management had in fact considered the request but had decided that the 28 day rent period would be charged. The council said that as Ms A had had the keys for 24 hours they needed to start the 'void' process again to allow safety checks to be carried out. (A 'void' is a property that does not have a current tenancy).

The council did say that they would expect there to be a record of conversations of a significant nature. We were critical of the fact that there were no notes in this case, but noted that the council had taken action to address this matter. Overall, we found that there was not enough evidence for us to say for sure that an assurance had been given to Ms A that her rent period would be waived.

When we looked at the issue about council tax, we found that although the council had resolved the matter by awarding a discount and cancelling the account, Ms A was still unhappy with what they had done. We found, however, that the evidence demonstrated that Ms A had not contacted the council after receiving the council tax bill or reminder notice, and that the council had correctly followed procedures in their handling of the matter.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that his aunt's hot water and heating system was properly maintained. He was also concerned that the council failed to deal with his subsequent complaints in a reasonable or timely manner.

Our investigation found that Mr C's aunt had had problems with the hot water and heating system for many years. However, in each case where faults were reported to the council, they had arranged for engineers to visit to attend to them. In addition, the council offered to provide a replacement hot water and heating system in January 2012, but council officers had been unable to gain access to allow this to go ahead. Following our contact with the council they offered again to install a new heating system but Mr C's aunt advised that she did not want this as it would be too disruptive. As we did not find evidence to show that the council failed in their responsibilities to maintain the hot water and heating system we did not uphold this element of the complaint.

We did, however, find that the council took longer than their stated timescale to respond to Mr C's complaint and also failed to consider earlier correspondence as formal complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to identify his complaint at an earlier stage, following his emails of 25 and 29 February 2012, and failing to respond to his complaint within the timescales detailed in their complaints procedure.

Summary

Ms C rented a property from a housing association. She claimed housing and council tax benefit from the council. Ms C thought that she was charged too much rent because the housing benefit department did not include an amount for a service charge on her tenancy. She said that she had asked for an explanation of her rent but they did not provide it. In early 2010, the council carried out a joint investigation with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which found that Ms C was not entitled to all the benefits she had been receiving. This meant that the DWP wanted to recover incapacity benefit, and the council wanted to recover housing and council tax benefit from her. Ms C told us that she wrote to the council saying that she wanted to appeal, and they said that they would pass this to the tribunal service. However, they did not do so, as they said that the DWP could not confirm that Ms C had appealed the incapacity benefit decision. The council said that, as it was the primary benefit, Ms C needed to appeal it first before appealing the other benefits. They began recovering overpayments of housing and council tax benefit. Ms C had, in fact, appealed the DWP decision but they had overlooked this until November 2010. In December 2010, it went in front of an appeal tribunal, which upheld the original decision.

In May 2011, however, the council found that the DWP had accepted a further appeal out-of-time. On that basis, the council suspended the recovery of housing and council tax benefit. Ms C asked them to make a discretionary housing payment to write off these two benefit overpayments, but the council told her that they could not consider a discretionary payment for this purpose. Ms C made a further application for a discretionary housing payment in September 2011, as she was suffering hardship. The council did not respond as they were waiting for the outcome of Ms C's incapacity benefit appeal before making a decision. In January 2012, the incapacity benefit appeal tribunal found in Ms C's favour, and wrote off all her incapacity benefit overpayment. The council did not accept the conclusion of the incapacity benefit tribunal but agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, not to recover the remainder of Ms C's other overpaid benefits.

We found no evidence that the council provided the housing association with incorrect information about Ms C's benefit entitlement or failed to respond to her enquiries about the reasons for increases in her rent and deductions from her benefit. Our investigation did, however, find strong evidence that the council did not deal appropriately with Ms C's requests for her overpayment decision to be sent to the tribunal, and for deductions to be stopped. Although they told her that she had not confirmed that she wanted to progress matters to the tribunal, we found that Ms C had quite clearly said she wanted to appeal. In the circumstances, the council should also have considered suspending the deductions, as their policy was to stop deductions when an appeal was outstanding. We found that the council correctly refused Ms C's first application for a discretionary housing payment application. However, we found that they unreasonably delayed on the second application and failed to provide any sort of communication during the application process.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• credit Ms C's rent and council tax accounts with any monies already taken relating to the overpayment, confirming in writing to her when they have done so;
• apologise for failing to suspend payments of housing benefit after her request for an appeal and providing inaccurate information for their failure;
• review their practice relating to accepting appeals and suspending repayment of overpayments to reflect housing and council tax benefit guidance;
• apologise for delaying Ms C's application and for failing to communicate effectively when processing her discretionary housing payment; and
• remind relevant staff of their responsibilities to deal with applications for discretionary housing payments promptly and to communicate effectively with applicants when considering such payments.

Summary

Miss C asked the council to change the type of heating in her house from electric to gas. When they said they would not do this, she complained that this was unfair because council tenants with solid fuel heating have a choice of heating type. Miss C said that the council had failed to properly investigate the inefficiencies in her heating system, which she said caused discomfort to her family and resulted in high heating bills, and that it was unreasonable to refuse her request when there was no cost efficient electric alternative.

As a result of our investigation, the council reviewed their original assessment of Miss C's property and found that it did require to be brought up to the 2015 Scottish Housing Quality Standards. The council proposed to carry out a further assessment using new software, to provide the most up-to-date readings, and shortly after that to provide Miss C with suitable options to bring her house up to standard. As the action taken by the council would result in the upgrading of the heating system, and was a positive step towards achieving what Miss C wanted in bringing her complaint to us, we decided that there was no need to continue investigating the matter, and closed her complaint.

Summary

Mr C reported the possible misuse of a blue badge in a public car park to the council and did not receive a reply. When he reminded the council about this, Mr C received an apology for the delay and an assurance that the matter would be investigated and appropriate action would be taken. When Mr C asked for more information about what action would be taken, he was told that the badge holder would be written to. He was also told that the council were satisfied that the holder legitimately qualified for a badge but that they could not provide Mr C with details of the investigation as this was sensitive information. From the information that was made available, Mr C was not satisfied that the investigation into his complaint had been handled properly, or how the officers who had investigated his complaint about the handling of the matter could have reached this conclusion. Mr C also complained that the council did not meet the timescales for responding to his complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the evidence confirmed that the council had investigated Mr C's complaint and taken appropriate action. We were satisfied that their reply was factually correct and set out the position as clearly as was possible, given that the information which could be released to him was limited as it related to personal information about a third party. This meant the council could not give him all the information he wanted. Finally we found that, although there was a delay in acknowledging Mr C's initial contact about the matter, the council had responded to later correspondence in accordance with their service standards.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of planning proposals for a new academic campus some distance from his home. A council committee granted planning approval in principle in May 2010 although the consent was not issued until March 2011. An initial application for consent for 'matters specified in conditions' was submitted in June 2011 and that formed the main basis of Mr C's four complaints. (Such applications relate to conditions attached to planning permissions in principle which require the further approval, consent or agreement of the planning authority for any detailed aspect of the development.)

Mr C complained that the council provided inaccurate and misleading information about access arrangements to the campus; a council officer failed to remain impartial when providing advice to a councillor and acted unreasonably by failing to respond to Mr C's letter, and the chief executive failed to respond to Mr C's letter of complaint within a reasonable time scale.

Our investigation found that the council conceded that the report on the first 'matters specified in conditions' application could have been clearer. It was not, however, acted on. The matter was put to the relevant council committee and continued, when it was re-presented in an amended form and considered along with a second 'matters specified in conditions' application. Both applications were approved. As we found no evidence of maladministration we did not uphold this complaint. Nor did we uphold the complaints about the council officer. We found no evidence to suggest that she was not impartial in giving professional advice to the councillor, and while Mr C provided evidence that he had emailed a letter to her, we could not independently confirm that she had received it. We did, however, uphold the complaint about the chief executive's response, as he accepted that it had been delayed. We did not make any recommendations as he had already apologised to Mr C for this.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C who were housing association tenants raised their concern about the condition of their back garden. A joint visit by the council and the housing association to view the condition of the garden had been carried out in 2007. The complainants were unhappy with that visit and disagreed with the accuracy of the report prepared by the council following the visit in 2007. They were dissatisfied that the council had now advised them that they would not inspect their back garden.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the matter. The council's social work service had visited the property in 2006 and had made a number of recommendations to the housing association in line with their social work responsibilities. At the request of social work services the council's health and safety adviser had visited the complainants' property in 2007 and had prepared a note of the visit. This was within their remit of giving advice to social work services. While Mr and Mrs C disagreed with the accuracy of the note, the council had confirmed that the officer who had drafted the document had confirmed that it was an accurate record. We advised the complainants that, as this related to a note prepared a number of years ago and as the officer was no longer with the council, further enquiries by this office would not add to the information already available.

We also found it was not within the remit of the council's health and safety service to carry out an inspection of a household at a householder's request and, as a result, the council had advised the complainants that they would not carry out a visit to their property. However, we found that discussions were ongoing between Mr and Mrs C and the housing association, as their landlord in relation to the garden.