Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about their decision to implement a change in the numbering of his flat. Mr C said the council failed to act in accordance with the statutory addressing charter (which provides guidance on how such changes should be gone about) and said the council unreasonably failed to provide an explanation as to how the change was implemented.

In 2011, we investigated a complaint from an owner of another flat in the same stair. He had complained because the council failed to serve him with statutory repair notices. Our investigation of that complaint found the council had sent the repair notices but they were incorrectly addressed to a flat within the stair that did not exist. We upheld that complaint and we recommended that to address this problem the council write to the owners and seek their views on adopting a different numbering system. The council issued a questionnaire to each owner to seek their views on this. There was not 100 percent agreement between the owners and because of that, the council put the matter to the relevant committee for a decision. The committee decided that the flats - which included Mr C's property - should be renumbered in a clearer, more logical way.

When we investigated Mr C's complaint we were satisfied that, in taking the decision to renumber the flat, the council had exercised their discretion, as they were entitled to do. The evidence confirmed that they took the decision after considering the statutory addressing charter and the complaint previously investigated by this office. In addition, we were satisfied the council had provided Mr C with a reasonable explanation as to why the decision was taken to renumber the properties.

Summary

Mr C lives in a village, which is a conservation area. He complained that the council did not take into account the relevant conservation area policies when considering an application to add an additional storey to the property next to his. He was particularly concerned because two previous applications were refused on the grounds that the proposals did not improve or enhance the conservation area, privacy levels would be unacceptably reduced and parking provisions proposed were substandard. He felt there had not been any improvements to these issues when the third application was granted.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the application had been handled correctly, and the relevant conservation policies had been considered. We noted that the proposed extension would be harled (a process of covering stonework with plaster containing small pebbles or stone chips). Although Mr C was opposed to this because other properties in the street were sandstone, the village's conservation area character appraisal listed harling as a traditional material, and described it as one of the unifying elements of the townscape. We also noted that relevant case law says that proposals did not actually have to enhance a conservation area, and if a proposal was neutral and caused no harm, this was acceptable. We noted that the previous refusal because of a lack of parking provision was not in fact a material consideration, and the council's explanations about this could have been clearer. We did not uphold the complaint but drew to the council's attention a number of ways they could have improved their handling of Mr C's complaint, and their explanations for the decision made.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mr C with the correct calculations for the overshadowing and sunlighting as referred to within the third application.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the council's handling of a consultation exercise carried out as part of the statutory process to introduce priority parking in an area of the city. Mr C was dissatisfied that the council started the formal process without carrying out informal consultation. In addition, Mr C was felt it was unreasonable that the council had not explained in advance the basis on which the decision on priority parking would be made following the formal consultation exercise.

During our investigation the council explained that it would have been preferable to have carried out informal consultation. However, in this case they had decided to proceed to the formal consultation which effectively served the same purpose and would allow the views of residents to be taken into account. As we did not find that anything had gone wrong in reaching this decision, which was one they were entitled to take, we could not challenge it.

We found no evidence that the council were required to explain the basis upon which a decision would be made, in advance of the formal consultation. In this case, the council had explained why the findings of any consultation exercise could not be determined in advance. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in this case.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had charged for a repair they carried out as 'emergency work' under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 (the Act) to repair the lock at the main entrance door to the tenement building where he lived. The information the council provided showed that they decided that the work should be dealt with as an emergency after it was reported that residents could not get in or out of the building. The council also considered that although part of the lock had been removed to allow access to the building, it was still necessary to take immediate action to carry out the repair in the interests of residents' safety, because of concerns that had been expressed about the unsecured stairwell.

However, the repair took five days to be carried out and Mr C was unhappy that the council treated the work as an emergency rather than allowing the co-owners to arrange for quotes and have the work carried out more cheaply. Mr C was also unhappy that the council took an unreasonable length of time to provide him with a breakdown of the repair work and associated cost. Under the Act, any owner has the power to instruct or carry out emergency work to a property. All the owners are liable for the cost of the work under the terms of the Tenement Management Scheme. This scheme sets out procedures that flat owners need to follow when making decisions about matters, including maintenance and repairs. 'Emergency work' means work which, before a scheme decision can be obtained, requires to be carried out to scheme property to prevent damage to any part of the tenement, or in the interests of health or safety. The Act does not specify the timescale in which emergency work should be carried out by but guidance issued by the then Scottish Executive said that an emergency will arise only where the work is so urgently necessary that it cannot wait the few hours required for consultation with other owners for a scheme decision to be taken.

We found that the time taken to complete the work was not in keeping with what the council said about giving co-owners the opportunity to organise the work themselves if the repair was going to take more than 24 hours to complete. We were, however, satisfied that the council have since undertaken a review of how they determine whether a repair should be treated as an emergency, in light of the repair work taking five days to complete in this case. However, we did not consider that it was unreasonable of the council, as co-owner, to have decided to treat the work as an emergency, as residents could not get access to and from the building. The council also had a duty of care in ensuring that they act in the best interests of their tenants.

Summary

Mr C, an advocacy worker, complained to the council on behalf of a client (Mrs A).

The complaint was about the council complaints review committee (CRC)'s handling of her complaint about her husband's care package. Mrs A said that the CRC was unreasonably delayed; that it did not take all of her evidence into consideration concerning the care provider and the council's offer of a meeting to discuss the complaint; nor did it include important information in its report to the council's Health, Social Care and Housing Review Committee (HSCHRC).

We upheld Mrs C's first complaint, as our investigation found that the council had not arranged the CRC hearing within the statutory timescale nor within a reasonable length of time. We did not uphold the complaints that the CRC was not given sufficient evidence to show that the council had attempted to arrange a meeting between Mrs A and the care provider to try and address Mrs A's concerns; that Mrs A had not been given the opportunity to provide her evidence in writing to the CRC and to discuss this at the hearing; and that the CRC had not provided the HSCHRC with their decision and recommendations in line with their policy and procedures. We reached this conclusion as we found no evidence to show that the council had acted wrongly in these matters.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delay in convening the CRC.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the siting of a new boiler house close to her property. This was as part of works being carried out by the council to replace the heating system serving a multi-storey block. In particular, Mrs C complained about the consultation process which led to the positioning of the boiler house.

However, before we completed our investigation, Mrs C contacted us and withdrew her complaint. We, therefore, did not reach a decision on it.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to consider well documented problems with a road when considering his insurance claims for damage to his car. On three occasions Mr C's car had been damaged by potholes and loose chippings on a stretch of the road. The road had been surface dressed by contractors employed by the council in 2010. During the severe weather of winter 2010/2011, the surface dressing had failed. One of the claims was settled, but the council's insurers passed the claim made in April 2011 to the contractor's insurers, who also denied liability and said that the council were responsible for the maintenance of the road. The final claim was made in August 2011 and the council had prepared an internal report which explained that appropriate maintenance inspections and repairs had been carried out at the relevant stretch of road over that time period.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that the council had taken into account the problems with road surface dressing, and had decided that the contractors were liable for this. We do not reach findings in relation to liability or discretionary decisions (decisions that the council were entitled to take). We did, however, criticise the council for leaving motorists in a position that meant they could not claim against either the council or the contractors as both denied liability, particularly as the council accepted there were problems. We suggested that the council as the local authority may wish to address that situation. We also found that although the August 2011 claim was dealt with appropriately, the April 2011 claim was not, because the council did not prepare an internal report. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reconsider Mr C's April 2011 claim.

Summary

In 2008, Ms C wanted to create a driveway into her property. She asked the council for advice, and they wrote to her with this saying that planning permission was not needed. They outlined the circumstances in which it would be needed and who she should contact should she wish to have the kerb dropped. Based on that advice Ms C created the driveway. More than two and a half years later the council contacted her to say that they wanted her to either purchase a piece of land at the edge of the road (which they owned and which she had used in creating the driveway) or re-instate it. Ms C complained to the council but remained dissatisfied with their response and complained to us.

We found that in 2008 the council had not explained to her that they had responded in their role as planning authority, and that she also needed to get the consent of the council in a different role as owner of the piece of land. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C; and
• consider waiving their administration charges for any sale of the land.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of herself and on behalf of her niece and nephew (Mr and Miss A) who were receiving social care services from the council. Mr and Miss A lived with their mother who was their main carer. When their mother was admitted to hospital, they were left without support. The council arranged for a care provider to provide care at home to Mr and Miss A in the form of help with cooking, washing and dressing while their mother was in hospital. Unfortunately, Mr and Miss A's mother passed away shortly after the council put these services in place. The council then reassessed Mr and Miss A as needing additional help with personal care, managing finances, carrying out domestic tasks, daily living skills and sleepover care.

Mrs C told me that she had a number of problems with the care provider which she raised with the council, including one incident when she says they failed to renew home insurance for Mr and Miss A, resulting in them having to pay £700 for repairs following a leak.

Mrs C complained about the care provider to the Care Inspectorate who told the council that the care provider was not registered to provide housing support services (such as assistance with managing bills, protecting the home and learning life skills). The Care Inspectorate issued a report upholding Mrs C's complaint against the care provider, and criticising them for a number of matters including how they had dealt with Mr and Miss A's finances. The council immediately arranged for a new care provider to provide services to Mr and Miss A.

When we investigated, the council acknowledged that the care provider had been providing a care service to Mr and Miss A that they were not registered to provide. Section 99 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 obliges councils to ensure that their services are appropriately registered at the time they are provided. As the council had failed to do this, we upheld this complaint.

We welcomed the evidence that the council had taken a number of steps to ensure that this would not happen again. This included identifying any other similarly affected individuals and carrying out a tendering exercise to ensure they were aware which of their care providers are registered to provide particular levels of service. However, we considered that the council should have taken further action to remedy the injustices suffered by Mrs C, Mr and Miss A and we made particular recommendations to address these.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for failing to ensure that the care provider was appropriately registered;
• investigate the care provider's actions in relation to the renewal of home insurance in 2010/2011 with a view to establishing and remedying any financial losses suffered by Mr and Miss A as a result, reporting back to Mrs C; and
• review their practice in relation to taking social work complaints about a social work service provided to another person.

Summary

Mrs C was the owner-occupier of a flat underneath a council property. She regularly reported to the council that the actions of the tenant above caused her nuisance. Her reports mainly concerned her neighbour pacing the floor for prolonged periods, the constant drone of a television which was occasionally turned up to a high volume and clearly audible telephone conversations. The council visited Mrs C's property on numerous occasions and installed a noise recording system in her home for a week, but did not find evidence of antisocial noise.

Mrs C considered that the council's actions were inadequate and thought that they should install additional sound insulation between the flats. She asked us to investigate a number of points, including the level of noise required before the council take action; the council saying that the costs for potential work on other properties were a reason for not doing work on hers; the council's consideration of her human rights; and the response times to her noise complaints.

After considering the council's comments, actions and obligations, we found that the council acted reasonably in relation to all of the above points so we did not uphold this complaint.