Local Government

The complainant is the former owner of a substantial detached house and farm steading buildings in a rural part of the Council’s area. Prior to marketing his property, Mr C commissioned an architectural practice to obtain planning consent on his behalf for demolition of some existing buildings and residential development in the farm courtyard area. The complaint made by The Practice on Mr C’s behalf is that salient information was omitted in a written response to a pre-application planning enquiry and that Mr C incurred substantial abortive costs in design fees and that the planning application fee was also lost when Mr C decided that the application should be withdrawn.

This complaint was received from the tenant of an East Ayrshire Council house in Kilmarnock (Mr L). Mr L was aggrieved about the Council’s actions as housing authority, in intimating to him that they intended to raise proceedings to recover possession of his home on grounds of his prolonged absence without their prior permission.

Falkirk Council

Falkirk Council

Summary

Ms C’s daughter (Miss A) has complex medical needs.  In 2011, the council assessed her as requiring 42 nights respite care each year but so far, this had not been provided. As her own health was suffering, and threatening to compromise the care she could give Miss A, Ms C made a formal complaint to the council about their failure to provide Miss A with the respite care she needed.

The council acknowledged that despite their efforts, they had been unable to meet Miss A’s requirements; they said that the resources needed in terms of the availability of a suitable carer, and the specialist knowledge and training required, were in short supply. They had approached a children’s hospice; a local charity with residential care facilities and put funding in place to provide assistance from Ms C’s mother.  The council said that although they had had no success, it remained their priority to provide Miss A with the respite care she needed.

We took independent social work advice and found that Miss A’s complex needs made it extremely challenging to provide an appropriate service for her.  The council had looked at a number of options which, for reasons outwith their control, had not proved possible. However, with the passage of time, there should have been greater consideration of Miss A’s circumstances and those of her family, a greater recording of the action taken by the council and a more creative and imaginative approach in order to show that they had done everything in their power to satisfy Miss A’s unmet respite care needs. We upheld the complaint.

Redress and Recommendations
The Ombudsman's recommendations are set out below:

What we are asking the Council to do for Ms C:

We are asking the Council to improve the way they do things:

The Council told us they had already taken action to fix the problem.  We will ask them for evidence that this has happened:

Summary
Mr C is the landlord for his brother (Mr A), who receives housing benefit.  Mr A has an injury which means he needs support to manage his affairs.  Because of this, the housing benefit is paid directly to Mr C as landlord, (and Mr C is authorised to communicate directly with the council about this).  Mr A's housing benefit payment was delayed on three occasions without notice, with the longest delay being about five weeks.

When Mr C complained after the second delay, the council agreed to monitor Mr A's account so they could notify Mr C of any future delays.  However, this monitoring was stopped after three months, and Mr A's payment was again delayed without notice.  Mr C complained to the council, who apologised that he was not told that the monitoring of Mr A's account had stopped.  The council said they had found a more efficient way to monitor Mr A's account, for a further six months.  However, Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response and brought his complaint to SPSO.

In response to SPSO's enquiries, the council explained that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) use a system of automated notifications to notify the council electronically of any changes to a benefit claimant's records (such as contact details or income details).  Where a notification is received that could result in a change in benefit entitlement, the council's system automatically suspends the claimant's benefit payment (to stop any payments being made until the change has been reviewed).  Council officers then review these notifications and either lift the suspension (if the change does not affect the claimant's entitlements) or contact the claimant to request further information or make changes, if necessary.   The council said Mr A's benefit was automatically suspended on three occasions (each time due to one benefit being stopped, with a different benefit starting in its place).  As these changes did not affect Mr A's payment, the council unsuspended the payment each time (once they had an opportunity to review it).  The council said the delay was due to the workload they had at the time, with each automated suspension being dealt with in turn.

We asked why the council did not notify claimants when their benefits were suspended in this way.  The council said this was because, in most cases, the automated suspensions are removed without any impact on benefit claimants, so it is not necessary to warn people about a possible delay in payment.  The council said they receive thousands of automated notifications every month, and notifying every claimant of a suspension that may be lifted before the payment is due would create unnecessary confusion and contact with the council, which would divert resources from dealing with the suspensions as quickly as possible.  The council also said their system would not allow them to send a letter that would fully explain the situation in appropriate circumstances, so they would need to do this manually (which would impact on resources).  The council said that, since this complaint, they had improved their processes to minimise the chance of a payment being delayed.

After investigating these matters, we upheld Mr C's complaint.  We found that the council was not complying with guidance from the DWP that requires decision makers to notify claimants in writing when a decision is made to suspend their benefit.  We did not consider the council had a reasonable explanation for not complying with this guidance, as the numbers they gave us about the average number and length of automated suspensions did not support their claim that the risk of a payment being delayed was small.  The council was not able to provide information on the actual numbers of people whose benefits are delayed, or for how long, as they do not monitor this.  We were particularly concerned that the council's system of automated suspensions did not include mechanisms for protecting vulnerable people or considering hardship at the time the suspension is made.  It was also not clear that the council is giving appropriate consideration to the individual circumstances of each case when they make a decision to suspend a payment under the automated system.

Redress and Recommendations
The Ombudsman's recommendations the Council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation found; and
• amend their processes to ensure that individuals are notified at the time a suspension is applied to their benefit (as required by the DWP Guidance).

Summary
Mr C complained about the City of Edinburgh Council (the council's) handling of a series of complaints about their management of projects to control small poster advertising within the city.  Mr C also complained about the tendering process for an advertising contract.

Mr C said multi-sided drums for sticking posters to had been put in place as a trial project in 2003.  Although the project had meant to be reviewed after a year, this had not happened.  Over the following twelve years, more drums had been added throughout the city.  Mr C had complained the project was not properly managed and that the council had no control over it.  He said the council had taken an unreasonable length of time to respond to his complaint and had provided an inaccurate response.

Mr C said the council had not responded at all to his complaint about tendering for advertising contracts.  He considered this unreasonable given the length of time the council had taken.

Mr C said he had complained about a specific site where advertising was being placed without the appropriate permission being given by the council.  When permission was requested, it was denied, but the council failed to take enforcement action.

Mr C also complained the council had provided inaccurate responses to his complaints.  He said he had proved this using information he had obtained from the council.

Mr C said none of his complaints had been handled reasonably by the council.  He also suggested the council's responses had been inaccurate and confusing.

The council accepted they had taken too long to respond to Mr C's complaints and that in one case, they had not responded at all.  They said they had received a significant amount of correspondence from Mr C about the same issues.  The council did not accept their complaint responses were inaccurate, confusing or misleading.

We found the council's handling of Mr C's complaints was unreasonable and failed to follow their own complaints procedure.  The council had not responded at all to one of Mr C's complaints.  Although the council had accepted there were delays in responding, we did not find evidence they recognised the length of these delays, and they had not provided an explanation for the failure to respond at all to one of Mr C's complaints.

We found the council's response to Mr C's complaint about advertising drums was inaccurate and that they had failed to keep appropriate records about the project.  The council were unable to provide evidence of any project management or assessment and it was unclear how the project could have been assessed for success or failure.  Although the council's internal correspondence accepted Mr C's complaint had identified areas of risk to the council they did not indicate to Mr C whether his complaints had been upheld.

We found the council had generally failed to handle Mr C's complaints reasonably.  He had been able to demonstrate that their responses were inaccurate with information he had obtained from them following their responses to his complaints.  We found the council had failed to follow their complaints handling procedures when dealing with any of his complaints and that staff appeared unaware of their responsibilities in this regard.

We found there were significant concerns about the failure to keep proper records about the advertising projects and the continual postponement by the council of a full assessment of them.  This was despite repeated statements by the council to Mr C that the projects had been reviewed.

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• provide a full response to Mr C's complaint 201508737 addressing each of the points raised by him;
• carry out a full review of the complaints handling in these cases to establish the lessons to be learnt for handling future complex complaints;
• provide evidence that all the officers involved in responding to these complaints have undergone complaints handling training;
• conduct a full review of their management of all the various advertising projects from their inception as proposed in 2012 and provide their findings to the Ombudsman;
• provide evidence of the actions taken to improve internal communication in view of the acknowledged failings in this case; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Overview In April 2007, the complainant (Ms C), the mother of four children, was made unintentionally homeless from her home in a village some distance from Perth. Ms C and her partner applied to Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for rehousing. The family were first accommodated in a bed and breakfast guesthouse in the village but were later allocated the temporary let of a Council house in Perth in August 2007. Ms C and her partner were anxious that disruption to their children's education was minimised. Ms C stated that when she made enquiry of the costs of transport to the village for two of her children, she was told that her outlay would be met. Specific complaints and conclusions The complaints which have been investigated are that: (a) Ms C was not properly informed directly by the Council about the travel costs for two of her children (not upheld); (b) when Ms C asked a NHS Health Visitor working with homeless families, she claims she was assured that travel passes would be issued for her children but that she would have to meet her own costs of accompanying those children (no finding); and (c) the Council's decision to fund Ms C's children's travel costs from the time of her complaint failed to address the substantial costs she had already incurred (not upheld). Redress and recommendation The Ombudsman recommends that the Council inform him of the outcome of their reassessment of policy. The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Summary
Miss C complained on behalf of her aunt (Mrs A), a tenant of the council.  Mrs A lived in a property formerly tied to her husband's employment.  After her husband's retirement and subsequent death, the council did not take steps to offer a tenancy to Mrs A, meaning that Mrs A lived in the property for over six years without a written tenancy agreement, until the council offered her a Scottish Secure Tenancy. Once Mrs A signed the agreement, the council made arrangements to survey the property and identify outstanding repair works.

A number of issues were noted, including a leaking roof and dampness, and the council undertook to carry out repairs.  However, Mrs A was not satisfied with the condition of the property and wished to move to a smaller property.  Miss C contacted the council on behalf of Mrs A to make enquiries about moving and to seek updates on repair works.  Miss C was not satisfied with the time it had taken the council to arrange for the repair works and she complained to the council.

Miss C had expressed concern that her aunt's property was not wind and watertight and was not suitable for her aunt to live in.  Miss C complained further that the council took an unreasonable length of time to complete the repair works.  Miss C also said that the council's communication regarding the repair works was poor.  The council said that while progress in completing the repairs might have seemed slow to Mrs A, there were reasons for the delays, and that overall the council acted reasonably in relation to the works.

The council explained to me that they transferred their housing stock and housing management staff to Glasgow Housing Association in 2003.  The council said that this transfer did not involve tied houses, and therefore did not include the property Mrs A resided in.  The council said that they should have taken steps to normalise Mrs A's succession to a tenancy in 2007 but added that this did not happen because of the lack of housing management staff.  I considered that the council's failure to make suitable provisions for the management of tied houses was unacceptable and that this failure contributed to the circumstances about which Miss C complained.

Regarding the council's responsibilities to Mrs A once the tenancy commenced, I was critical of their failure to undertake an inspection before the tenancy commenced.  I also noted that once the survey was undertaken, the council unreasonably failed to consider whether the property was acceptable accommodation in terms of the tolerable standard (a statutory standard for quality of housing).  I was concerned that serious health and safety issues were outstanding for several months from the beginning of the tenancy and I considered that it was unreasonable that the council failed to consider whether Mrs A should have been offered alternative accommodation until the repairs had been completed.  I was also critical of the time it took the council to start the repair works and I noted a number of delays that I considered to have been avoidable.  I concluded that the council had failed to meet a number of their statutory responsibilities as a social landlord as well as their responsibilities in terms of the tenancy agreement.  In view of this, I upheld Miss C's complaint and made two recommendations.

I also considered the council's communication with Mrs A and Miss C.  I noted that the council had not told Mrs A about the works that would be undertaken and how long it would be before completion of these works.  I was also critical that the council failed to provide a single point of contact for information and queries about the repairs, and I found a number of instances where the council had failed to respond to Miss C's emails.  In this respect I concluded that the council had acted unreasonably.  I upheld Miss C's complaint and made two further recommendations.

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mrs A for the significant delay in repairing her rented property;
• abate (refund) Mrs A's rent in full for the period between 1 May 2014 and the date the major repair works were completed;
• issue a written apology to Mrs A for failing to provide reasonable updates on the works; and
• issue a written apology to Miss C for the communication failings identified in this investigation.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about the actions of Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) following it being identified that the land on which their home is situated might be contaminated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to respond in a timely manner to correspondence from Mr and Mrs C and their solicitors and to include them in relevant meetings (partially upheld); and
• (b) failed efficiently to handle arrangements for Mr and Mrs C's temporary decant to enable demolition of their home, remediation of the land, and a replacement house to be constructed (partially upheld to the extent that the Council could have acted earlier to confirm decant arrangements).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the circumstances of this complaint to ascertain whether guidelines should be produced for dealing with future similar circumstances.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and have started a process of review.