Local Government

Summary
Mrs C is a council tenant. In 1997, she moved from one property to another in an exchange scheme. It was a condition of the scheme that Mrs C accepted her new house in its current condition and that no non-emergency/non-statutory repairs would be carried out during the first six months. Mrs C told us that when she took over the house, she reported that there was a chip in the bath tub. She said that the council refused to repair the bath and told her that she had to take the property as seen. In 2011 Mrs C transferred again. The council made a pre-transfer assessment, and assessed the bath as 'damaged'. They sent her an invoice for more than £600 to cover the cost of replacing it. Mrs C said that the damage referred to was the same chip that existed when she moved into the property.

In deciding to hold Mrs C liable for replacing the bath, the council relied on the 'Application to Exchange Houses' form and the end of tenancy document completed by the council officer who inspected the property in 1997. They also referred to a copy of the pre–transfer report prepared before Mrs C vacated the property in 2011.

Our investigation found that the 1997 forms were largely incomplete, with only the section about the décor of the property filled in. There was no record of the condition of the bath. The council took the view that because the documents did not say the bath was damaged, this meant the damage occurred after Mrs C moved in. We, however, took the view that as there was nothing in writing to show that the bath was inspected at the end of the previous tenant's tenancy, this was not evidence that it was undamaged at that date.

The council also told us that when they carried out the pre-transfer inspection in 2011 they told Mrs C that she would be charged for the bath. When we looked at the relevant report, we found that although the fact that the bath was 'chipped' was noted, there was no indication that this was rechargeable. There was no agreement by Mrs C in the declaration section to either undertake repairs herself or pay the cost of repairs, and she had not signed the report. We saw no evidence that disagreed with what Mrs C had told us, and we upheld her complaint. The council have since cancelled the invoice and re-emphasised to staff the importance of completing documents about the inspection of property at the end or start of a tenancy.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• review their decision to recharge Mrs C and do so with fair cognisance of the information available and/or not available including Mrs C's version of events; and
• review their procedures in relation to the completion of documents relating to the inspection of property at the end or commencement of a tenancy, ensuring that all sections are completed as required.

Summary
Mrs C's children were in the care of an afterschool club. While walking to the park, staff overheard the children say something which, Mrs C said, was misconstrued. As a consequence, a child concern referral form was completed and the matter was reported to the social work department. Mrs C said that when she went to collect her children the next day, the issue was raised and she was questioned about it. She said that she was given only vague information in return and she was concerned that the children's conversation had been incorrectly reported. Mrs C complained that the council treated both her and her family unfairly and did not properly investigate her concerns. She also complained about the way in which the council handled her complaint.

We looked at all the relevant documentation including the council complaints file, complaints policy and relevant procedures. However, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints as we found that the council acted in accordance with their stated policies and those which applied nationally. We found no evidence to suggest that the council treated Mrs C and her family unfairly or were less than objective. Mrs C was concerned that a record of the situation would remain with her children indefinitely, but we did not find this to be the case. Finally, we found that the council dealt with her complaint in line with their complaints policy.

Summary
Mrs C's father was the tenant of a council property for many years until his death in 2011. In 2007, with the support of his family, Mrs C's father had applied to buy his house.
The council considered the application under the relevant legislation in place at the time (The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987). They refused it, on the grounds that the house had been adapted to accommodate a disabled person. Following her father's death, however, Mrs C said that the council let the house to an able bodied person and that the adaptations were removed. She complained to the council about this but remained dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us.

Our investigation found that, although the council had let the house to a person without a disability, this was only after procedures had been followed to try to accommodate a person specifically in need of the facilities provided. Only movable adaptations had been removed, and the council intend to keep the house (and the permanent adaptations that were made to it) within their housing stock.

We were satisfied that the council appropriately refused to sell the house to Mrs C's late father, and that they had considered and applied appropriate legislation and policies in making their decisions. We did not uphold her complaint.

Summary
Mr C had initially complained to us about a financial assessment carried out on a woman who had gone into care. We laid a report before parliament about that complaint in December 2010. We recommended that the council look at a document that they had not previously seen, and revisit their decision with a view to giving Mr C a full explanation of the reasons why the social work complaints review committee (CRC) had rejected his arguments.

As a result of our report the CRC re-convened to consider the recommendations. They considered that the document was sufficiently important for them to change their previous decision. Their recommendation was then put to the council's social work appeals sub committee. After hearing Mr C and a legal adviser, the sub committee took the view that there were exceptional circumstances in this case and that they should reject the CRC's recommendation. The sub committee minuted in detail their reasons for this. We did not uphold Mr C's new complaint that the council failed to provide a full and adequate explanation for the initial CRC decision. The fact that the CRC had taken a fresh look at the matter and changed their decision meant that the council did not then need to provide reasons for the earlier decision.

Summary
Mr C is a council tenant, who complained to the council about maintenance issues. He was specifically concerned about damaged trees, re-location of grit bins, a loose aerial, roughcasting repairs, rhone cleaning, and a missing skirting board and badly fitting extractor in his house. He was also dissatisfied with how his complaints about these matters had been handled.

In our investigation we reviewed the council's actions in all of these areas, noting that the matters had been ongoing for some time and that Mr C had had considerable contact with the council about them. We were, however, satisfied that the maintenance issues had been, or were being, dealt with in line with the council's relevant policies and procedures and that the council had handled his complaints appropriately and in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council, in their capacity as landlord, did not tell him whether self-closing fire doors need to be fitted in his home or if the door that they had fitted in June 2011 met the Building Standards Regulations (Scotland) Act 2006. He also complained that the council did not respond to his complaint within a reasonable timescale and did not give him sufficient information to evidence that their actions were in line with the relevant building regulations.

We upheld some of Mr C's complaints. We found that the property had been built prior to new regulations which apply only to new buildings or existing buildings undergoing major structural change. There was, therefore, no requirement for the council to replace Mr C's door to the current building regulations. However, we found that the council did not clearly explain this to him following his enquiry. We also considered that they did not respond to the complaint according to their complaints procedure, and did not provide information (that they had agreed to give Mr C) until after the complaint had been raised with us.

We did not find any evidence to show that Mr C had asked the council whether the kitchen door that had been replaced met the relevant building standards regulations.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• highlight to the housing department management team the importance of updating complainants on the progress of their complaint and ensuring clear and full responses are provided at all stages of the complaints procedure.

Summary
Mr C lived in a sheltered housing complex. He complained that the council wrongly cautioned him about antisocial behaviour after a complaint was made against him that claimed he was responsible for noise nuisance.

We found, from looking at the information provided by Mr C and at the council's records, that the council issued the caution in the knowledge of the relevant facts available to them at the time. Mr C was given an opportunity to discuss the complaint against him, but did not take up that opportunity in time. Despite this, the council later considered Mr C's evidence. This did not, however, change their view that the caution was apropriate. We found that the council acted in line with their policy and procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C owns a workshop on an area of land identified as a housing site in the local development plan (the plan) agreed in 2006. When carrying out a public consultation on a proposed update to the plan in 2010, the council decided to notify all properties within and adjacent to the site. Mr C learned of this in early 2011, and raised concerns with the council that he had not been notified of the proposed plan.

The council told him that they had notified people of the proposed plan using the corporate newsletter and Royal Mail's address database, and that Mr C's property did not appear on these. They accepted that this system was not totally accurate, and explained that they also advertised the proposed plan locally. They apologised that their efforts had not ensured that Mr C had been made aware of the proposed plan.

Mr C also raised concerns that, after he spoke to a councillor about the matter, a developer had been made aware that Mr C had complained to the council. He asked the council if they knew how this had happened. In responding the council said that no council officer had provided this information to the developer. They asked Mr C which councillor he had spoken to and said that on receipt of that information they would check what their involvement might have been. Mr C supplied this information to the council but did not receive a response.

During our enquiries the council reviewed their communication with Mr C and wrote to him telling him about the action they had taken to investigate whether the councillor had provided information about him to the developer, and explaining their conclusion that he had not. They also explained that, although they had spoken to the councillor at the time, they had not replied to Mr C because he had said that he was bringing his complaints to us. We decided that the council had acted reasonably in the notification process, and that their explanation for why they had not responded to Mr C was also reasonable, as at that stage Mr C had already completed the council's complaints procedure.

Summary
Mrs C complained that when the council installed new street lighting in her estate they did not replace the column that provided light to her side of the street. She complained that, despite being told by the council that the lighting level would improve and the road and pavement would be adequately lit, the new lighting did not provide the same light and her property was now in darkness.

When we investigated the complaint, the council provided documents that confirmed that the lighting columns erected in Mrs C's cul-de-sac conformed with the street plan for replacement lighting. We found that the council investigated Mrs C's complaints, including by making a night visit, and considered her request for a new light but had decided that this could not be justified on the grounds of cost, as the existing arrangement met the relevant British Standard. We found no evidence that the council had handled the matter wrongly.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's trading standards department. He said that they had told him to obtain a specialist report on a newly installed door that he said was faulty and that this would be forwarded to the company concerned. Mr C later complained that the council reneged on their agreement to send the report. He said that as a result, it took longer to resolve matters and that he was not reimbursed the cost of the report. He also complained about the council's complaints handling, saying that the acting chief executive failed to respond properly to his concerns and left out important details.

Our investigation confirmed that the council officer had not send the report as he indicated he would. This was because he found out that the company had offered to send a representative from the manufacturers to inspect the door. He found this out at the same time he received the report from Mr C and took the view that it would be more appropriate to follow the manufacturer route. While this was a decision for him to take, we took the view that he should have told Mr C about it.

We found that the advice given to Mr C by trading standards staff was sound at the time it was given and that despite his claim that he was told to postpone submitting a claim for the cost of the report, there was no evidence to suggest this.

Although Mr C was unhappy with the acting chief executive's response, we found that he had replied in detail and had addressed Mr C's concerns. While Mr C did not agree with the terms of the response that does not mean that it was inappropriate.