Local Government

Summary

Mr C bought a second property with a view to renovating it and eventually moving into it. It took Mr C some time to bring the property up to habitable standards, and he moved into the property two and half years after buying it. When he moved in, he received a notification from the council about a council tax levy that was imposed on him from seven months earlier. Mr C complained to the council that they failed to inform him of this levy in writing at that time. He also believed the legislation from the Scottish Government gave local authorities flexibility and discretion when imposing the levy. We asked the council if the policy to impose a council tax levy on unoccupied properties was a blanket decision and whether they considered that they were not using their discretion when they could have been. The council confirmed that it was a blanket decision as they wanted to treat all home owners equally, and therefore it was not unreasonable to not consider Mr C's individual circumstances.

Following our investigation, the council accepted that they failed to take the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance into account when they originally drafted their policy. However, we also found that the council were correct in how they interpreted the relevant regulations and that they had the discretion to impose the levy on all cases and not take into account individual circumstances. Our investigation found that the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance on the regulations was not accurate and conflicted with the regulations. As a result, the Scottish Government has agreed to amend the guidance. We did not uphold this complaint, however we recommended that the council review their policy for council tax levies for unoccupied dwellings.

The council explained there was an administrative error when processing Mr C's account which explained why he did not receive notification of the council tax levy in writing. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should review Mr C's council tax account and reconsider his individual circumstances.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council's policy for council tax levies for unoccupied dwellings should include a provision to exercise discretion when considering whether to apply the levy on a case by case basis, in line with Scottish Government guidance on the regulations.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Need help?

Our advice line freephone number is 0800 377 7330. If you need any information in other languages or formats, please let us know.

We are committed to making our service easily accessible to everyone.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for the demolition of a section of internal garden wall in a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission. Mr C complained that the report of handling of the application had not been reasonable because the author commented upon the state of repair of the wall having only seen it in photographs. Mr C also complained that the report did not reasonably evaluate the application in line with policy or justify its conclusions. He also complained that the council's responses to his complaints were contradictory and misrepresented both their policies and the significance of the visibility of the wall from public areas.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that it was reasonable in the circumstances that the report's author had only seen the wall in photographs. The adviser also gave their view that the council's consideration of relevant policies had been reasonable. We accepted the adviser's views and concluded that the council's evaluation of the application had been reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

We reached the view, taking into account the adviser's opinion, that the council's complaints responses did not misrepresent their policies or the significance of the visibility of the wall. We also concluded that the responses were not contradictory, but that they reasonably addressed the different points Mr C had raised at different stages of the complaints process. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms and Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action in response to reports of bullying of their children at school by another child. In particular, Ms and Mr C were concerned that a restorative conversation was not facilitated by the school between their children and the other child.

We did not uphold Ms C and Mr C's concerns about the actions taken concerning the bullying because we found that the actions taken by the school were inline with the steps set out in the council's policy. The school explained that they would normally take a restorative approach to bullying, but they explained why they did not consider the conditions were in place to do so. We felt the council's policy should reflect this so we made a recommendation in light of our findings.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council's anti-bullying policy and guidelines should address their practice in relation to restorative conversations.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to ensure that her new bathroom was installed correctly as she had to report a number of leaks in the months following the installation. Ms C said that she had to report a leak on a number of occasions, and that the council and their contractor unreasonably delayed in establishing who was responsible for the leak, which led to her being left without adequate facilities for a lengthy period of time. Ms C also complained that the council delayed in completing the repairs.

The council was unable to provide accurate records in response to our investigation. It was difficult to establish exactly what happened and the reasons for the delay. We found that Ms C was left to chase up both the contractor and the council to progress the repairs and we did not find this to be acceptable. In response to our investigation, the council explained that the bathroom installation was signed off as per their normal procedures and that the leak was not related to the installation as it was not reported until one month later. We accepted that the council did ensure the bathroom was installed correctly and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

However, we found that the council did not provide an adequate explanation for what happened. There did not appear to be a coordinated response from the council and Ms C was left with a leaking toilet for an unacceptable period of time. The council failed to provide evidence of a thorough investigation into Ms C's complaint. We concluded that the council unreasonably delayed in establishing who was responsible for the leak and in completing the repairs. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to respond appropriately to the issues she was experiencing and for the delay in completing the repairs to her toilet. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, available at: https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Reflect on the findings of this complaint and consider how to improve their recording systems. The council should also ensure that their contractor provides accurate records and is reminded of the council’s responsibilities towards their tenants to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action when a property built on the same development as his property was not in compliance with the planning permission which had been granted, in that it did not provide a reasonable turning area for the development. The council responded to Mr C's complaint and said that the turning area had been assessed since the development had been completed and was determined to be suitable for purpose, despite the fact that it does not fully reflect what was shown on the plans. The council said that the turning area is suitable as it is wider than was originally provided for in the layout plans. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council's approach to considering a turning area when granting the planning permission was reasonable and correct. We also found that, with regards to enforcement action, this is a discretionary matter for the council. We concluded that the council had reasonably investigated and assessed Mr C's complaints about the suitability of the turning area. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

A solicitors firm complained on behalf of their client (Ms A) about the management of asbestos at a property she had rented from the council, and the time taken to provide her with a decant from the property.

Ms A's former property was constructed with asbestos containing materials. The council had surveyed these materials and considered that they were of low risk. Ms A was made aware of this when she moved in to the property. Approximately one year later, Ms A said the council's contractor undertook works at the property, and she was concerned that they damaged the flooring. Ms A said she reported this to the council. Approximately three years later, Ms A contacted the council to raise concerns about the flooring at the property and the council arranged an inspection. The council did not consider that the asbestos containing materials presented any risk. However, a decision was subsequently made to decant Ms A to another property. The council said that they offered one property, however, Ms A did not wish to move there. A number of months passed before Ms A was decanted to another property.

Regarding the management of asbestos at the property, we found that the council had conducted a survey that established this was low risk and in good condition. We found that the council followed their asbestos management plan. We found no evidence that the council's contractor carried out works inappropriately, and the council had no records of being contacted at that time. When Ms A raised concerns about the property approximately three years later, we found that the council organised an inspection, and relied on the professional expertise of their officer in concluding that there was no risk from the asbestos. We found this to be reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to the time taken to provide a decant, we noted the council's records indicated that one was initially offered, but Ms A did not wish to move. The council explained that there were limited properties available that were suitable. The property that Ms A was eventually moved to required works before it was ready. In these circumstances, we considered that there was no unreasonable delay by the council and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to take the appropriate action in response to her reports of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had investigated Ms C's complaints in line with their procedures. Whilst we noted that Ms C does not wish to continue living at her property, the council have not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour, therefore they cannot be required to take any enforcement action. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council dealt with his application for payment of a home improvement grant for his mother. Mr C had not received a receipt from the contractor who had carried out the work, so he had submitted other evidence as proof of payment. Mr C complained that the council:

unreasonably refused to make payment of the full grant, despite receiving evidence that he had paid the contractor in full

failed to advise him that the documents that he had provided as evidence of payment were insufficient

unreasonably failed to verify whether his documents, or the documents that they had received from the contractor, were accurate in order to establish if payment for the works had been carried out

unreasonably failed to clarify in their response to his complaint why he had not been advised of what would have been an acceptable proof of payment.

We found that it was reasonable that the council did not accept the proof of payment provided by Mr C, as it was not an official bank statement, and that they therefore did not pay the full grant until further evidence was received. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we considered that the council could have been more helpful in that they could have advised Mr C of what documentation they would accept as proof of payment. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that it would not be reasonable to expect council staff to seek to independently verify the legitimacy of any document it received which did not meet the requirements set out in the booklet issued with every grant awarded. This would be impractical and in some cases, not possible, due to data protection restrictions. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also noted that the failure to advise Mr C of what would be acceptable proof of payment was not identified in the council's handling of the complaint and so we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him of what would constitute sufficient evidence of payment. Also apologise for failing to acknowledge this in their response to his complaint.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Staff should advise service users who are unable to obtain a receipt from a contractor exactly what may be accepted as sufficient proof of payment in the absence of a receipt, rather than telling them what will not be accepted.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that the head teacher of her son's primary school had failed to follow correct procedures when they contacted social services regarding concerns about her son. She also did not consider that the head teacher had communicated with her appropriately when they informed her of her son's potential exclusion from school during what she considered to be an informal meeting with the class teacher.

The council met with Ms C to discuss her complaint and confirmed in their initial response that the head teacher had acted appropriately in contacting social services following a disclosure made to a member of staff. The council confirmed that, in order to protect and maintain confidentiality, they were unable to discuss the nature of the disclosure with her. With regards to the meeting informing Ms C of the possibility of exclusion should her son's behaviour not improve, they confirmed that the meeting was in keeping with previous interactions she had with the school and was therefore appropriate and in line with their procedures. Ms C was not satisfied and brought her complaint to us. In addition to the complaints about procedures and communication, Ms C also complained to us that the council's response to her complaint was unreasonable.

We concluded that, based on the records taken at the time regarding the disclosures made by Ms C's son, the head teacher had acted appropriately in contacting social services to discuss the concerns. We found that the head teacher acted in line with child protection policy and, given the nature of the disclosures made, was correct in not sharing the details with Ms C. In relation to the separate and unrelated matter of the potential exclusion of her son, it was clear that the school had complied with relevant policies regarding the management of pupil behaviour and that the communication with Ms C was appropriate in the circumstances. We concluded the council had acted appropriately and did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

With respect to the complaints responses issued by the council, we found that their two stage two complaints responses were issued a several days outside of the required timescales and that they did not communicate the delays with Ms C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint and, while we did not make a recommendation, we requested that the council remind staff who deal with complaints of the importance to comply with timescales and communicate with complainants effectively.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way that the council dealt with repairs relating to a leak in the roof of his council tenancy. He told us that there had been considerable delays to complete the roof works required and that this had led to extensive damage to the plaster in one of his bedrooms. He said that the council told him that he would be responsible for the works internally and so he began carrying out the necessary repairs, stripping the plaster from the walls. Whilst this work was in progress, he told us that a council officer attended his property and told him to stop the works immediately. The council then completed the works and recharged Mr C for the cost, which he felt was unreasonable.

We found that there had been a period of around six months from the date the repairs were first reported until the roof works were totally complete. However, the council initially carried out a minor repair within two days, which they believed had stopped the leak. We saw no evidence that Mr C had contacted the council to report that the leak persisted and they only became aware that further works were required three months after the initial repair, when visiting to investigate reports of unauthorised works. At this visit, they found that the plaster had been removed from two of the walls in the bedroom and the electrics had been damaged.

We found that the council then instructed a report, which identified that fairly major masonry works were required, necessitating extensive scaffolding. They accepted that there was some degree of delay in completing these works, but explained that this was due to poor weather and a high demand for roofing contractors. On balance, we did not consider that there was an unreasonable delay, given the extent of the works required. We also considered that they were entitled to recharge Mr C for the works required to the bedroom, as there was no evidence that he had contacted them to request these repairs before carrying them out himself, which he was required to do under the terms of his tenancy agreement. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.