Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained about inaction by the council with regard to building warrants issued for his neighbour's property. His and his neighbour's property were formerly a single dwelling with a shared stairwell. Mr C's neighbour applied for a building warrant to renovate his property, including works within the old stairwell.

Mr C complained that the works were not completed in line with the building warrant or to the required fire and accoustic insulation standard. He considered that the warrant required his neighbour to divide the two properties by introducing a new ceiling at the level of Mr C's floor. The neighbour's failure to do so prevented Mr C from carrying out work for which he had obtained a building warrant.

Mr C complained that the council did not act when told about the lack of sub-division of the properties. He also felt they should have taken enforcement action against his neighbour as the work was not carried out in line with the building warrant.

We did not find that the original building warrant (or a subsequent amendment) required his neighbour to divide the properties. We were concerned, however, that the council did not take prompt action to address legitimate fire safety concerns raised by Mr C and made recommendations.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• review their procedures for ensuring that fire safety risks are resolved in good time; and
• consider commencing enforcement action against the named property.

Summary
The complaint concerns the council's administration of a statutory notice issued on a building in the city.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.

Summary
Mr C lives in a top floor tenement flat in a close which was the subject of three statutory notices. He was aggrieved that after scaffolding had been erected and the scope of the works had been extended, the council had failed to consult independent engineers. He also considered that conservation measures had not been taken in respect of chimneys, that best value had not been obtained, the front chimneys were damaged and that lack of adequate supervision had lead to an increase in costs.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.

Summary
Ms C purchased a flat in a building in the city. Shortly thereafter, the council served a statutory notice on owners of the building requiring rectification of specified matters of disrepair. Ms C complained that she had not been notified and had lost the opportunity as a joint owner to organise the works herself at less expense.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.

Summary
The complaint concerned the council's administration of statutory notices issued on a building in the city.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.

Summary
A supermarket chain applied for planning permission to build a new store opposite Mrs C's home. Mrs C complained that the road outside her property is dangerous and that planning permission was granted without proper consideration of the danger to local residents entering and exiting their driveways. She complained that amendments to the layout of the junction for the new supermarket were not made known to local residents and that the council failed to carry out appropriate and independent assessments of the safety of the road.

We found that the amendments to the plans for the junction were non-material variations to the original plans and, as such, did not require neighbour notification. The developers carried out Roads Safety Audits and we considered these to have been appropriate within the context of the planning process. We did not consider there to be an obligation on the council to carry out further assessments and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's appeal procedure for provision of school transport. He complained that the council failed to consider the information he provided in his appeal on behalf of his children in a fair and competent manner; that the council's appeal process was not 'open, fair and transparent;' and that in providing information on the process, the council misled Mr C over his right of appeal against the process and decision.

Our investigation found that the council had considered Mr C's appeal in line with their agreed process. There was no evidence that the council had not assessed the walking route in accordance with requirements and guidelines and we found that the council had advised Mr C of the outcome of his appeal within the agreed timescale.
 

Summary
Ms C complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of her housing situation between 2007 and 2009. In particular, Ms C was unhappy with the assistance offered by the council during her stay in a private rented flat. Her landlord failed to carry out required repairs and Ms C was unhappy with the council's handling of the situation and their subsequent handling of her emergency housing situation after she was forced to move from the property when it became uninhabitable. Our investigation found that the council took reasonable action in relation to the outstanding repairs and followed their procedures in the handling of Ms C’s housing situation after she was made homeless.

However, we found that the council failed to bring Ms C’s house up to an acceptable standard for let after carrying out essential works and that they could have offered more assistance when she moved to a permanent council house. The council accepted this and offered compensation, although Ms C remained dissatisfied with the amount awarded.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• ensure tenants are advised to contact the Private Rented Housing Panel at the earliest appropriate point.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained of shortcomings in the handling of their complaint at various stages of the council's complaints procedure.

Their complaint was under investigation by the council and Mr and Mrs C complained that they had been directed to our office to pursue the matter. We made enquiries to the council, who agreed to include Mr and Mrs C's complaint in their ongoing investigation, and so we closed the file.
 

Summary
Following the installation of a new shower in her property, Mrs C experienced water penetration through her living room ceiling which resulted in a hole in the ceiling and plaster falling on her carpet and furniture. The council's joiner refused to cover the hole as it was likely that it contained asbestos. This left her fearful of the unknown danger from asbestos and, as nobody from the council was prepared to make safe the disturbed asbestos, her son temporarily sealed the hole.

The ceiling was later removed by a team of specialist contractors, some 88 days later, which was well outside the council's stated timescales. In addition, Mrs C was unhappy that the contractor had said she had to completely clear all non-fixed items from the room beforehand. As her property only had one bedroom, she had nowhere to store her furniture and had to arrange for it be put in storage. Being 70 years old, and in poor health, she thought the council should have arranged assistance for her to do this. When she complained about the matter, she said the council breached their complaints policy by not responding to her within the time stated and failed to address the major area of her complaint.

We found that the council accepted that they should have arranged for a specialist contractor to cover the ceiling until it had been established whether the artex (a surface coating used for interior decorating) contained asbestos. They also said that they failed to make immediate arrangements for the asbestos to be removed to allow the ceiling to be replaced once the test results had been received. They acknowledged they had not responded to her complaints within their published timescales. In respect of providing Mrs C with advice and guidance in relation to possible exposure to asbestos, the council also acknowledged that they failed to do this.

The council had already identified key failings in their handling of this matter and wished to apologise most sincerely for those failings. We took into consideration that they had already apologised to Mrs C that she did not receive an acceptable level of service in relation to their handling of the repair. They also acknowledged Mrs C's concerns about exposure to asbestos and their failure to provide her with information or advice on the matter. They had offered to cover Mrs C's decorating costs and the cost of the van hire and storage of her furniture. Mrs C had refused that offer. The council confirmed that they do not have a policy on offering assistance to elderly tenants in moving or storing furniture, where this is required to undertake a repair.

We identifed several areas of poor service in the council's handling of the matter and Mrs C's complaint which the council themselves had already acknowledged. We, therefore, asked if they would be prepared to to make a further payment of to reflect the time and trouble taken by Mrs C in making her complaint. The council agreed to that request.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• take appropriate steps to ensure where a surface covered in artex is damaged and is thought to contain asbestos that the damaged area is safely covered as a matter of urgency;
• prepare an information leaflet on possible exposure to asbestos to be handed to tenants in similar circumstances;
• look at their administrative process for repairs to ensure that steps are taken to ensure that instructions are passed immediately to specialist contractors as soon as asbestos is identified;
• conduct a thorough audit of their complaints handling procedures to ensure that all the issues raised by a complainant are addressed in their response; they respond within the timescales; they follow up on any offers made to complainants; they ensure that where officers relocate to another building correspondence is passed to them and complainants are advised of their right to come to the SPSO when they have exhausted the council's complaints procedure and the time limits for doing so;
• write to Mrs C to offer their apologies for the particularly poor customer service identified; and
• write to Mrs C to offer reimbursement for necessary expenditure and in recognition of the time and trouble to which she was put in pursuing her complaint.