Local Government

Summary
Mr C and Ms C complained about the council's handling of an application for single person discount for council tax. The council had originally decided not to award single person discount but following the introduction of new guidance had revised their decision. Although single person discount had been awarded, Mr C and Ms C were unhappy with the number of questions asked by the council and the lack of explanation for the reasons for the questions. They were also concerned about the handling of their representations on the matter, the quality of information provided and the handling of their formal complaint.

We upheld most of the complaints. Prior to our involvement, the council had accepted that there had been some failings in the decision making processing and had taken action to improve the process and their customer service. During our investigation the council also accepted that they had failed to provide adequate information to Mr C and Ms C during the processing of the application. We did not, however, find evidence of any fault in the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for the failings identified in this complaint; and
• remind staff of the importance of following the guidance previously issued.

Summary
Ms C purchased a property which she intended to rent out to students. She contacted the council to establish what should be done about council tax.

Ms C complained that the council provided her with inaccurate information, leading her to believe that the tenants would be liable for the council tax. The council sent student packs to the tenants but they did not complete these. Ms C did not know this until she visited the property and found a number of demand notices. When she provided further information about the tenancy agreements, the council decided that the property was a house of multiple occupancy (HMO), making Ms C liable for council tax as landlord.

Ms C complained that, had she been told that the property was an HMO sooner, she could have made different arrangements that would have accounted for or avoided much of the council tax arrears that accrued. She also complained that the council failed to update her home address details. This resulted in correspondence and demand notices being sent to the wrong address, affecting her ability to resolve this.

We did not uphold the first two complaints. We found that the council provided appropriate information about council tax, based on the information that they had. Once they established that the property was an HMO, they worked appropriately with Ms C to establish if discounts and student exemptions should be applied to the account. We did not find that the council failed to record Ms C's address correctly when she bought the property. We did find, however, that they were slow to update their system when she told them about later changes of address, and upheld this complaint. We recognised the impact that this had on Ms C, but as the council had already acknowledged their error and apologised to her we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to give him the correct information on how to appeal to the Sheriff Court. He said that this resulted in his appeal against a notice under Section 13 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 not being heard.

Mr C lived on an estate of houses constructed before legislation (introduced in the 1980s) required a developer to lodge a road security bond. The developer at the time did not apply to the roads authority to have the roads and footpaths of the estate adopted and maintained at public expense. The residents association (of which Mr C was not a member) pursued the matter of adoption with the council. Mr C informed the council that, purely based on his own financial resources, he would be unable to support the adoption of his road. A majority of residents, however, voted for the adoption.

A Section 13 notice was issued by the council under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. (A Section 13 Notice requires the owners of any land fronting or abutting a road to make up that road to the required standard.) This notice said that if the majority of households which fronted the road agreed to the road being adopted, the council would carry out the maintenance work on the residents' behalf and recover the costs.

A second letter was issued the same day advising residents of the right of appeal against the notice to the local Sheriff Court. It said that they should do so within 28 days, and that if they wished to do so or were in any doubt as to the consequences of the notice then they should consult a solicitor immediately. Mr C said that he was given misleading information in a telephone conversation with an officer of the council that his right of appeal could be made in letter form to the sheriff clerk. Mr C said that he wrote to the sheriff clerk, but did not retain a copy of the letter. The sheriff clerk did not respond and, when several months later, Mr C contacted the sheriff clerk's office he was told that they had not received his letter. The evidence we saw about Mr C's telephone conversation with the officer from the council suggested that the officer was not acquainted with this particular appeals procedure, but sourced the address of the sheriff clerk from a colleague in the council's legal services department and provided it to Mr C.

We found that the written advice in the council's letters was unequivocal and correct. It was unfortunate that Mr C understood the oral information given in his telephone conversation with the officer from the council to contradict those letters, persuading him that a letter to the sheriff clerk would suffice as a valid submission of an appeal against the Section 13 notice. On balance, and after full consideration of the matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that he was misled or that he lost his right of appeal in consequence.

Summary
Ms C complained that the council failed to take action to stop her neighbour from paving a grass service strip which formed part of the road verge. This strip lay between the homes of Ms C and her neighbour. Ms C pointed out that the title deeds to the properties in the estate prevent residents from paving these areas.

The council explained to Ms C that, from a roads authority point of view, the works carried out were of a reasonable standard and would not prevent access to services. As a result they were of the view that they had no responsibility to require the neighbour to removed the paved area and reinstate the grass. The council explained that this was a private legal matter.

In our investigation, we reviewed the roads legislation and design guidance and satisfied ourselves that the council were correct in their view and that they did not have any additional responsibility to require the neighbour to reinstate the grass. We also agreed that this was a private legal matter.

Summary
Ms C complained that the council evicted a tenant following investigations into allegations of antisocial behaviour and then some time later allowed the tenant to return to the property. Ms C said that she received no explanation from the council about why this happened.

The council told Ms C that they had not evicted their tenant but had taken action against her in connection with non-occupancy of the property. When we investigated this complaint, they explained to us that they had put in place a number of measures in an attempt to address the antisocial behaviour but that they were limited as to the information they could provide to Ms C and her neighbours.

We explained to Ms C that for reasons of confidentiality we could not provide her with all the details the council had given us. After considering the evidence, however, we were satisfied that the neighbour was not evicted and that the explanation provided by the council for the actions they had taken was appropriate.

Summary
Mr C submitted a medical assessment form for priority housing to the council. He explained that the property where he was living was unsuitable for his daughter's complex health needs. Just under a month later, Mr C was told that the medical adviser had determined that an award of Serious Medical Need priority was appropriate for their situation. Mr C appealed this decision some three weeks later. The council upheld the appeal and awarded Mr C Urgent Medical Need priority, but not until over four months after he submitted his initial appeal.

Mr C complained about the delay in the council reaching their initial decision on his application and also of the delays in notifying him of the outcome to the stage one and two appeals he made. Mr C also complained about the council's failure to provide him with adequate information about how the initial decision could be appealed; the lack of reasoning given by the council to initially award him Serious Medical Need; and the lack of explanation given by the medical adviser in not overturning this decision after reviewing his stage one appeal. Mr C further complained that the council failed to backdate the Urgent Medical Need award to the date of his original application.

We upheld most of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that, although the council gave justifiable reasons for the delay in dealing with the stage one appeal, there had been excessive and unreasonable delay in dealing with the stage two appeal. We did not consider that the council failed to provide Mr C with adequate information about appealing the initial decision. However, we found that they had not given clear and detailed reasons for initially awarding Serious Medical Need, nor had the medical adviser explained the reason for not overturning this decision after reviewing the stage one appeal. In addition, the council had initially backdated the Urgent Medical Need award to the date which the stage two appeal had been received instead of the date the original application had been submitted.

The council apologised to Mr C for the delay in assessing his medical appeal and are undertaking a review of their medical assessment process. They also met with the relevant medical adviser to ensure sufficient reasoning is provided to applicants on the outcome of medical assessments. In addition, the council backdated the Urgent Medical Need award to the date the original application was submitted. As the council have taken appropriate action to resolve the problems identified, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C's daughter was taking music lessons at school. When she started, the lessons were free but, unknown to Mr C, the council had already decided that they would begin to charge for them at the start of the next school year.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to tell him that in future there would be a charge, which he could not afford, and said that he was out of pocket as he had bought his daughter an instrument and sheet music. He said that he would not have done that if he had known that the council had already decided to start charging.

He also complained that the council failed to consider the issue of inclusive education in their impact assessment on a proposed efficiency savings policy (which included the introduction of these charges).

Our investigation found that the council did not tell parents about the charges until finalising the administrative and income collection processes for them, some four months after taking the decision. We upheld Mr C's complaint as we found it unreasonable that the council did not tell parents who applied for free music tuition in the preceding months that a charge would apply from the start of the new school year. We considered whether we should recommend that they recompense Mr C for the cost of the instrument and music, but decided that they should not, as other alternatives were available, and the decision to buy the items was clearly his choice.

On inclusive education, we considered that the council's impact assessment took account of equalities legislation and community relations. The council explained that there is normally a charge for music tuition for pupils who are not studying for Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) music qualifications. Mr C's daughter was not studying for such a qualification. Although, therefore, Mr C felt that his daughter was excluded on ability to pay, there was in fact no requirement for the council to provide free tuition outwith the SQA qualification.

Summary
Mr C's complaint concerned his late father's headstone in the council's cemetery. A team from the council had inspected the headstone and decided that it was unstable. The council attached a sticker to the stone to indicate that it needed repair. Mr C complained about the testing procedure and about the conditions the council sought to impose upon him in carrying out the repair work. He was dissatisfied with their response and complained to us.

Our investigation found that burial ground operators should have systems in place to control risks to visitors and other members of the public. The approach set out in the guidance involves the periodic assessment of memorials as part of a planned programme including a visual check, a hand test and more detailed inspections where required. The guidance said that appropriate precautions can then be taken to manage the risk to the public. We found that the council had in fact followed appropriate procedures.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to adopt (take over responsibility for) land behind his property a number of years ago, and take over the maintenance of the land. Mr C felt this had been a mistake at the time by the council and the developer of the estate. The council had been carrying out maintenance of the area of land subject to the complaint for a number of years and Mr C was dissatisfied when the council decided to withdraw this maintenance. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations.

During our investigation we found no evidence that the council were required to adopt open space in private developments for future maintenance purposes. Also in this case, we found no evidence that the land had been transferred to the council and as a result the land had not been adopted by the council. The council had been carrying out maintenance of the land, but on a voluntary basis, and they were under no obligation to either continue to maintain, or to acquire, the land.

We did find evidence of fault in the handling of Mr C's representations. The council had, however, already taken action to reduce the time taken to respond in situations such as this (where there were a number of council services involved) and were carrying out a review of their complaints handling procedure. We took this into account, and that they had already apologised to Mr C. We had no recommendations to make.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to provide him with an appropriate valuation for a servitude right (a right that a person has to use or enjoy the property of another person) for a plot of land he sold for development. He was concerned that the council did not base their valuation for this on the price he sold the land for, rather than the valuation they obtained.

We found that the council had obtained an independent valuation for the plot of land and based the price for the deed of servitude on this value. Although the valuation obtained by the council was higher than that achieved by the sale, as the council was required to obtain best value for their assets, we found their actions were appropriate. For this reason we did not uphold the complaint.