Local Government

Summary

Mr C is a council tenant. He complained about an invoice that the council sent him in respect of a repair to an outside tap. He said that the tap was damaged by the council’s contractors when doing modernisation work to his house, and he had reported the damage several times via the council’s online complaints service but they had failed to respond. The tap then fell off when his son brushed against it and he contacted the council for assistance when he could not turn the water off. As the tap had originally been damaged by the contractors, however, he considered it unreasonable that the council sent him the bill for this repair.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. During our investigation we found no evidence that he had reported the damage any earlier. We also listened to a recording of a telephone conversation, in which he reported that his son had damaged the tap and agreed to pay the bill.

Summary

Mr C is a former council tenant of a downstairs 'four in a block' flat. A tree in his front garden had grown to eaves (roof) level and his upstairs neighbour (an owner-occupier) complained to the council that this meant she was being denied both light and a view. The council offered to prune the tree but Mr C said he would prune it. That did not happen and, according to Mr C, workers arrived in March 2011 saying that they had a works order to remove the tree at Mr C's request. When he said that he had not requested the tree's removal, they left, contacted the police and requested their attendance. Mr C prevented the removal of the tree that day, and next day applied to buy his home. A year later, he instructed a contractor to trim the tree but the upstairs neighbour was not fully satisfied.

Mr C made four complaints against the council. We upheld his complaints that the council raised contradictory and inaccurate works orders in respect of the tree and that workers arrived unannounced to carry out the works. We found that the council had not acted properly in these respects. We did not, however, make any recommendations as the council had already apologised and amended their procedures in response to the complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints that an inaccurate report was made to the police to secure their attendance and that the council failed to deal appropriately with his complaint, as we found no evidence to suggest that the council acted inappropriately on either matter.

Summary

Mrs C told us that following the early birth of her baby, who has disabilities, she was supported by a social worker who provided a range of helpful information and advice. Mrs C said that the social worker told her that costs for travel to work, meals and childcare could be deducted from her earnings when calculating the upper earnings threshold for carer's allowance. Mrs C made a claim for carer's allowance when she started working. Some six years later her claim was reviewed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Mrs C was told that she was not entitled to deduct expenses for meals and travel to work from her earnings and that she had earned more than she was entitled to while claiming carer's allowance. Mrs C was told that she had to pay back £14,888 in overpaid carer's allowance.

Mrs C complained that the council had provided incorrect advice. The council said that they were not providers of expert advice in relation to DWP benefit claims. They said that they provided support, in good faith, to help people navigate their way through systems which could be complex. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, as the records held by the council confirmed that advice and support, including advice in respect of benefit entitlement, had been provided but there was no evidence that specific and incorrect advice about earnings disregards had been given. As there was no evidence to show whether the council had provided incorrect advice we could not substantiate the complaint. We did, however, make a recommendation to try to make the council's responsibilities clearer to clients in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue written guidance to staff working directly with members of the public, particularly where there is a degree of dependence or vulnerability, to clarify what kinds of advice can legitimately be given by council staff and when clients should be signposted for specific and detailed advice from professional experts in welfare benefits.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live in a house on a coastal strip below a site that contains two plots which received planning consent in 2005 (after a successful appeal to Scottish Ministers). A subsequent application was made in 2010 for full planning permission for an amended design on these plots. As part of the 2010 application the applicant provided an overlay comparing the earlier consent with the 2010 proposal.

Due to an error by the applicant's agent, first noted by a senior planning officer the day before a site visit, the case officer's report referred to the 2010 application as being at a lower height than the 2005 approval, although the finished floor levels were in fact about the same. The senior planning officer had requested an amended overlay from the developer, and this had been available to the planning committee the next day when they visited the site before deciding on the 2010 application. Mr and Mrs C made three complaints, two of which we upheld. We found that, had the error been uncovered earlier, then in the period leading up to the site visit an amended or supplementary report could have been provided (removing the references to the lower height of the 2010 proposals) and that a more appropriate methodology could have been used to demonstrate height levels at the site visit.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the defects identified in the way that they processed the 2010 application.

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.