Local Government

Summary
Ms C is the landlord of a private flat. She entered into a tenancy agreement in November 2009 with a person whose deposit was warranted by the council under their then newly introduced Rent Bond Guarantee Scheme (RGBS).

The tenant contacted the council's Private Rent Sector Access Team about repairs. They inspected the flat in July 2010, informed the landlord registration service, and advised the tenant to terminate her tenancy. Ms C said, however, that she was not contacted by her tenant with regard to needed repairs.

She complained to us that the council did not vet the tenant properly, did not contact her about the matter of the repairs and did not allow her input. She said that she was out of pocket as a result of the tenant's actions. Prior to complaining to us, however, she was reimbursed the full amount of the rent bond.

We upheld part of Ms C's complaint as we found that the role of the council team involved was ambiguous and that she was not given the chance to resolve the matter of the repairs with her tenant.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• consider issuing instructions to officers as to how repairs issues raised by RGBS tenants will be dealt with and a properly documented audit trail established;
• ensure that in the instance where an RGBS tenant is advised to contact his or her landlord, that such contact is confirmed by the Private Sector Access Team before other action is contemplated and Landlord Registration contacted; and
• ensure that the circumstances where an RGBS tenant may be advised to terminate his or her tenancy be set out in appropriate officer guidelines.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had failed to prepare a development brief for a housing development near to his home. He was of the view that this was in breach of a policy in the local plan. This policy stated that the development must comply with an approved development brief prepared by the council.

The brief was prepared by the developer, in consultation with the council's planning department. Prior to approval, it underwent a period of public consultation after which amendments were made to the brief and the revised document was considered for approval by the Planning Committee.

Mr C considered that the developer's involvement in the preparation of the brief meant that it would be biased in favour of the developer. He considered that this was not what was required in terms of the local plan policy and he was also of the view that the council altered the terms of the development plan without following the correct statutory procedures.

Although the developer was very involved in the preparation of the brief, it was prepared in consultation with the council. The council's Planning Committee had, following public consultation, the right to accept or reject some or all aspects of the brief. As a result, we were satisfied that the final document was prepared and approved by the council and that it was in compliance with the policy in the local plan.
 

Summary
Mr C's mother (with Mr C's help and following discussion with a social work officer) applied for grant assistance to install a walk-in shower in her home. Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of the housing improvement grant. In particular, he was concerned about the adequacy of the information provided and the level of contact with him during the processing of the application. He also complained that the council failed to deal with his complaint properly.

Our investigation found that the council had correctly handled the improvement grant but that they had failed to contact Mr C about additional works required to the bathroom which if not carried out would have resulted in the application being rejected. The council had instead contacted the contractor direct on behalf of Mr C.

We also found that, while the council had handled the complaint in line with their complaints process, they had failed to respond to one letter within the timescales set down in their complaints process. The council apologised to Mr C for the delay in responding to that letter.
 

Summary
Ms C complained about the former private let of a property in the council's area, and about the council's actions in respect of her former landlord, a serving councillor. Ms C alleged that the council unreasonably granted landlord registration to her landlord during an investigation into the presence of carbon monoxide in the property owned by him and failed to ensure that the landlord complied with his landlord registration responsibilities.

Our investigation found that the landlord had already been registered but had not told the council about a change in management responsibilities for the property tenanted by Ms C and another property. That was rectified by a meeting called swiftly by officials when the matter was brought to their attention, where the landlord was reminded of his responsibilities. In light of the action taken by the council, we did not uphold either complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the actions of the social work department in dealing with him, his son with his former partner and the way the council dealt with his complaints to them about this.

Mr C complained that documents sent to him about his son and step-sons contained inaccuracies. We upheld this complaint but found that the council had already addressed these issues, and had taken remedial action to prevent a recurrence. They had also apologised to Mr C in various pieces of correspondence.

We did not uphold Mr C's other two complaints. One was about the arrangements for contact appointments for Mr C to see his son. In particular, one appointment had been cancelled without Mr C's knowledge or agreement and was not re-scheduled. Our investigation considered whether or not responsibility for these arrangements in fact lay with the council. We found that the arrangements were the responsibility of Mr C and his former partner, so the fact that the appointment was not re-scheduled was not the fault of the council.

Mr C's final complaint was that he was not satisfied with the outcome of a Complaints Review Committee (CRC). We explained to Mr C that when investigating complaints about social work our role is limited to looking at whether or not the council followed their own procedures for dealing with complaints, including the administration of the CRC process. Our investigation established that the CRC was administered in line with the council's process and that there were no unreasonable delays within the process. The council also implemented the CRC's recommendations and Mr C was informed of this in a timely manner.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that he was fined £45 for late payment of council tax. He considered this unreasonable because he said he had not been given the opportunity to pay in ten monthly instalments. The original demand notice stated that an annual lump sum payment was due by 30 April 2010 and Mr C had later contacted the council to request to pay in instalments. A revised notice was issued to him in June 2010 for seven payments to be made by January 2011.

We found that the legislation which applies to paying council tax (The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2000) says that the amount is to be payable in no more than ten monthly instalments beginning when the demand notice is issued prior to the beginning of the relevant year. In line with this legislation, we found that the amended payment schedule reflected the three payments Mr C had already made and set out the balance to be paid in seven further instalments. As the demand was issued before the beginning of the relevant year (and the notification issued to him in June 2010 was not a new demand notice), the council could only allow him to pay by ten instalments in total. Mr C was fined (following the issue of two reminder notices) because he did not comply with the revised instalment payment schedule, and his account was passed to the warrant recovery stage in line with the Regulations. We found that the council had administered this correctly.

Summary
Ms C complained that the council treated her unfairly when administering her council tax account. She said that money continued to be deducted from her pension credit to pay council tax after the council said that they had instructed the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to stop this. Ms C also said that she was incorrectly charged for a late payment, and that the council did not give her sufficient information about the years to which the arrears on her account related. Ms C’s complaint included an allegation that the council failed to deal with her complaints according to their complaints procedure.

We upheld all of Ms C’s complaints. When we investigated, the council confirmed that they had told DWP to stop the deductions. However, when DWP told them that this would not be done for some months, the council failed to follow this up despite Ms C complaining again about the continued deductions. We found this delay inappropriate. On the matter of the incorrect charge, the council accepted that Ms C was unlikely to have received the demand notice that resulted in the issue of a warrant for late payment. They also accepted that she was not given enough information about the council’s application to the DWP about deductions to her pension credit and about the unpaid council tax that resulted in this application being made. We noted that the council acknowledged in correspondence with Ms C that there had been delays in dealing with her complaint. As a result of our investigation they also accepted that they should have told Ms C that their response would be delayed.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Ms C for all the failings identified;
• apologise for failing to comply with the complaints procedure; and
• take measures to ensure that information is provided to customers when direct deductions are made, and confirm to us what these measures are.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to acknowledge or investigate a failure of their neighbour notification system regarding a planning application for a development in his area. He said that when he and three of his neighbours did not receive notification of the proposed development he complained to the council. Mr C said that the council claimed that there had not been a failing in their system and refused to investigate the matter. Mr C felt that they had not tested what went wrong with the neighbour notification system, despite his evidence that showed the system was failing. Mr C provided copies of his communications with the council.

The council’s view was that they had complied with their neighbour notification system. They provided evidence to demonstrate that this was the case. They said they do not have a statutory obligation to investigate failures in the system beyond what is set out in law and there is no statutory requirement for them to find out whether there was a substantial body of evidence that notification had not been carried out.

In looking at Mr C’s complaint, it was not our role to determine whether there was a systemic failure by the council to carry out neighbour notification, but to determine whether Mr C's complaint about alleged systemic failure was handled correctly. We found that in terms of general complaint handling, it was reasonable for the council not to launch an investigation into alleged systemic failure on the basis of one complaint that one neighbour did not receive notification. (It was alleged but not proven that this also occurred to another three neighbours and we noted that the other three neighbours did not complain to the council.) However, while the council's decision not to investigate further was reasonable, their response about when a reported neighbour notification failure would warrant further action was vague and unclear. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made the following recommendations.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• provide clarification, to Mr C and this office, of what they mean by a ‘substantial body of evidence’ and provide details of the steps they would take to investigate any substantial failings; and
• feed back this clarification and our views on this case to the planning staff who deal with complaints about neighbour notification.

Summary
Mr C purchased his new home in August 2009. The building is roofed with a proprietary roofing system rather than slates or tiles. Mr C was alarmed in January 2010 when he noted that the roof tended to shed accumulations of snow. Because he felt this was dangerous, he brought it to the developer's attention. The developer, however, did not consider this to be a problem.

The developer applied for a certificate of completion and the council issued a Notice of Acceptance of Completion Certificate under Section 18 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. Mr C was still very unhappy and, in addition to contacting other interested parties, such as the architects for the project and National House Building Council, he engaged in detailed technical correspondence with the council on whether a building warrant should have been granted and verified. He also wanted to know whether the council should regard the building as unsafe and so take action. Dissatisfied with their response, he complained to us.

Our investigation did not uphold Mr C’s complaints that the council erroneously granted building regulations approval, acted improperly in defending the verification of the building warrant, or failed to act when Mr C alleged that the building was dangerous. This is because we found that they properly considered the issues he raised and responded accordingly. Mr C strongly disagrees with their position but that does not mean that the council acted wrongly. They have discretion to make such decisions and we cannot question this in the absence of any administrative or service failure on their part.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to take appropriate action to deal with vandalism at a cemetery. Mr C was not an adjoining neighbour of the cemetery and had not specifically stated that he was a lair holder or had loved ones buried there. We, therefore, considered his complaint on the basis that he was an interested member of the public who was concerned that the cemetery should not deteriorate further. In the absence of a specific claim of injustice, or that Mr C suffered particular hardship, we considered only whether the council properly considered the points he raised with them and provided appropriate responses, particularly where they decided that they were unable to take the corrective action Mr C specified.

When we investigated, we found that the council had responded appropriately to the points Mr C made. The fact that he did not agree with these responses or the level of corrective action taken did not give us grounds to question the council further on these matters. The council have discretion to decide how to spend their resources and we cannot question this in the absence of any administrative or service failure on their part.