Local Government

Summary
Ms A's MSP complained to us on her behalf that the council had failed to repair cracks in the pavement and road outside Ms A's home. They also said that the council had failed to take action to prevent cars and refuse trucks parking outside Ms A's home, causing damage to the road and access difficulties for Ms A. When we investigated, however, the council told us that they had visited the site and were satisfied with the condition of the road and the pavement. They provided copies of records of the inspections carried out to the road and footway in the area and a record of the defects identified and repaired in the area. They also said that if Ms A provided evidence of the cars and refuse trucks that she said were parking inappropriately outside her home, they would investigate the matter further. As the council had clearly taken appropriate action we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C wanted to move house and applied to Fife Housing Register (FHR). He was allocated a certain number of housing points based on his circumstances, but when he appealed about the number of points awarded, these were reduced. Mr C complained to us that FHR removed medical points from his housing application and disregarded information from medical experts in support of his case. Our investigation found that there was an error in the initial handling of Mr C's housing application and we upheld the complaint. Because of the mistake he had wrongly been given two awards of points for the same housing need. One of these awards entitled him to more points than the other. FHR confirmed that Mr C was only due one award of points for that housing need and withdrew the higher award of points. When Mr C appealed, FHR re-examined his application and, although they confirmed that he was only entitled to one award of points, they decided that it should be the higher of the two he was originally awarded. Our investigation found that the outcome of the appeal had corrected the situation, in accordance with the pointing scheme, and that medical information had been taken into account along with housing need. Although Mr C still felt he should have a higher allocation of points, we took the view that FHR had sorted out their original mistake and had made sure that he now had no more and no fewer points than he was entitled to. As FHR also explained that they had learned from Mr C's case and had taken remedial action to improve their processes, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council changed their policy on free school transport without consultation with the parents concerned. This meant that his two primary school age children were no longer entitled to free bus travel to school. He complained that the council had not followed the Road Safety guidelines and did not ensure that the road safety report (assessment of the walking route) was compiled correctly. He also complained that inspections, notifications and decisions on road safety were not undertaken fairly (as part of a consultation) and the council failed to give parents early advice of the alternative arrangements which might be available for their children. Our investigation found that there was no requirement for the council to consult before making the policy change because it was undertaken as part of their budget process. And although the parents had obtained an independent report which concluded that the route was unsafe to walk, there was no evidence that the council did not assess the route in accordance with requirements and guidelines. Finally, we found that that the council had engaged with parents and had corresponded with Mr C when he raised his concerns about the changes.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C applied for a disabled parking space outside their home. Their neighbour immediately opposite applied for one at the same time. The road was not wide enough to accommodate both spaces outside the respective properties. The council's area committee considered the matter and decided to situate Mr C's space on the opposite side of the road. He found this to be unacceptable due to the nature of his medical condition. Mr and Mrs C then complained that the information presented to the area committee was misleading and inaccurate. They were unhappy with the process leading up to the decision, and the council's complaint investigation. We found that the report presented to the area committee included some subjective opinions as fact, and misrepresented the situation somewhat. We also found that Mr and Mrs C were not given enough notice of the deadline for submitting documents for the area committee. We found that the council did not respond to all of their complaints and that the investigation was clouded by personal opinion and did not concentrate solely on the facts. After their investigation, however, the council had agreed to refer the matter back to the area committee, so we made recommendations with this in mind.

Recommendations
We recommend that Aberdeenshire Council:
• compile a new report on the options for Mr C and his neighbour's disabled parking space applications;
• refer Mr C and his neighbour's disabled parking space applications back to the area committee for their consideration;
• remind complaint handling staff of the importance of responding to all points raised;
• consider reviewing the format of their investigation reports;
• set a deadline in advance for submissions from both parties prior to Mr C and his neighbour's parking space applications being reconsidered by the area committee; and
• review their procedures for the preparation of committee reports to ensure that interested parties are given clear deadlines for submissions.

Summary
Mr C was building a conservatory at his home. He was unhappy because the council's Building Control team continued to correspond with the builder even after Mr C told them that he was acting as agent for the build. He also said that the council had agreed a plan of completion of works with the builder that did not require an appropriate damp proof course. Finally, he was unhappy with the way the council dealt with his complaints. We found that there was no evidence that Mr C had asked that he be treated as sole agent for the build. In addition, it was clear that the Building Control team had worked directly with the builder, in line with their responsibilities, to ensure that an appropriate damp proof course was installed. We also found that, in general, the council had dealt with Mr C's complaint appropriately.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to compensate them for the costs involved in installing a new central heating boiler in their council-owned property. Mr and Mrs C installed their own central heating boiler in 2009 when they took over the property, as they were concerned at what the running costs would be for an old style boiler which they thought should have been replaced.

The council housing manager wrote to Mr and Mrs C to explain that they would not be renewing the boiler as the existing one was in working order and fit for purpose. They said that Mr and Mrs C had been told they could renew the boiler themselves but would need permission to do so from the Council. Mr and Mrs C went ahead and installed the boiler. Initially they did so without asking the council if they could, but permission was granted after the work had been done. At that time, Mr and Mrs C also asked for a discretionary payment towards the cost of the boiler, but the council refused this.

The tenancy agreement says that tenants must get written permission to add new fixtures such as central heating before beginning any work. Permission may be granted with conditions, including conditions regarding the standard of work. It also says that if tenants have made alterations or improvements without permission they may be entitled to compensation at the end of their tenancy.

Taking all that into consideration, we decided that as Mr and Mrs C signed this
agreement when they took up the tenancy, the council acted correctly in following the conditions as set out in the agreement. The Tenant Handbook outlines where and when compensation may be payable for improving a home. This says compensation may be paid on ending a tenancy, so we found that the Council acted correctly in advising Mr and Mrs C that pro-rata compensation would be considered, but only when Mr and Mrs C leave the tenancy.

Summary
Miss C was unhappy about the noise she could hear from her next-door neighbour's kitchen. She complained to the council, who sent an officer to investigate. She then complained to us that the council had not properly investigated her concerns. She felt that the council official who investigated was not in the property long enough to establish the cause of the noise transmission. It is not for us to investigate the issue of the noise transmission itself but simply to see whether the council acted correctly in investigating the matter. When we investigated we found that the council officer had attended on a number of occasions but had never witnessed noise nuisance. They had provided advice on what Miss C should do in future if there was a problem. The council’s buildings standards section also investigated a further complaint from Miss C about unauthorised structural works to the property that she believed were affecting
noise levels, but found that no such work had taken place. We recognised that Miss C as an individual found the noise particularly distressing. However, we found that the council had properly carried out their duty to investigate the matters she had raised.

Summary
Mr C owns a property in a block of flats where the council manage the communal
upkeep. He complained to the council about nine issues relating to the amounts the council charged him for managing the property and for shared costs. He was
dissatisfied with their replies and complained to us that the council failed to reasonably handle his complaints.

We found that he had not made two of the complaints directly to the council. We could not look at those at all, as we need them to have gone through that process first. We also could not consider the detail of the issues complained about as the SPSO Act prevents us from considering matters of a commercial or contractual nature, or the setting of service charges. We could, however, look at how the council handled Mr C’s complaints. When we did so, we were satisfied that, although Mr C was unhappy with the outcome of the complaints, the council had dealt with them appropriately.

Summary
As part of the Edinburgh Trams project, the City of Edinburgh Council have carried out works to alter the road network in some areas of Edinburgh City Centre. The changes to the road network to support the new tram infrastructure were carried out using a series of public consultations in conjunction with Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).

The council decided to relocate the disabled parking bays in Frederick Street from near Princes Street to near George Street as part of this programme. Mrs C raised a number of specific issues about this change. These included the accessibility of the new location, the process of consultation (which she felt did not include disability groups or interaction with the blue badge scheme), and an assurance she said the council had given to reverse the change when possible. Mrs C was also unhappy with the reasons given to support the change and said that the changes breached her human rights and the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Our investigation looked at the regulations that councils must follow when applying for TROs and at guidance issued by the Disability Rights Commission and the Scottish Government. As changes to road management can only be made as part of the TRO process, our investigation was restricted to considering whether the process had been followed out appropriately.

During the investigation, we found that the council had complied with the guidance and procedures. This included appropriate consultation with disability groups and compliance with the appropriate guidance. There was no link between the blue badge scheme and the positioning of disabled spaces that the council needed to consider and the reasons the council gave were reasonable. We found no evidence that the council had given a specific assurance that the change would be reversed.

While we did not uphold any aspect of the complaint, we accepted that Mrs C had been affected by the change. We noted that there would likely be a further opportunity for Mrs C and disability groups to comment on the change as part of any future TRO which would follow completion of the tram scheme itself.

Summary
Mr C asked the council to provide a larger household waste bin for his property. The council told him that their policy is to provide a single household waste bin to
households with up to four family members, to be emptied fortnightly. They offered to work with him to identify an appropriate solution, and suggested that he carry out a waste monitoring exercise to assist with this. Mr C was unhappy with this, as he had previously carried out a similar exercise and felt that his family circumstances meant that a larger bin was the solution. He complained to us that the council’s response was unreasonable because they suggested that he participate in a second waste monitoring exercise and because he felt the council’s procedure for collecting excess waste was unreasonably time consuming and illogical.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. In responding to his request for a larger bin, the council explained their policy and offered assistance to explore potential alternative solutions to the problems Mr C was facing. Mr C decided to reject that offer and we found that the council’s responses in respect of his complaint were reasonable. In terms of the council’s procedure for collecting excess waste, Mr C simply disagrees with the council’s decision. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that policies about the frequency of waste collection and the size and type of waste receptacles that the council will collect are for the council to decide. The SPSO Act says that where an organisation has the right to take a decision we cannot consider a complaint about the decision unless there is evidence that something went wrong in taking it. In Mr C’s case, there was no evidence that the council’s decision was not properly taken. Mr C clearly disagrees with the procedure for collecting excess waste but this was not in itself evidence of maladministration or service failure. We therefore could not consider
that complaint further.