Local Government

Summary

Miss C reported longstanding problems with her heating and hot water and had raised previous complaints with the council about this. The council had attended Miss C's property when repair requests were raised, but did not find any issues and left with the heating in working order. Miss C made a formal complaint as she was unhappy with these findings and was of the view that the problem remained unresolved. The council responded initially by advising that, as a full inspection of the heating system had been conducted four months previously, there was nothing further that they could do. Miss C escalated her complaint which prompted an inspection from the housing area team leader and a plumber. They identified several parts which needed replaced and arranged to do this. The council's complaint response offered an apology to Miss C for the delays and stress this had caused. Miss C was unhappy at the level of service she had received and she brought her complaints to us. Miss C complained to us that the council had:

unreasonably delayed in carrying out appropriate heating and hot water repairs, in line with their obligations

failed to communicate reasonably with her throughout the process

failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into her complaints.

We obtained information from the council and were of the view that, whilst the responses to individual repair requests were prompt, the level of investigation was not proportionate to the longstanding nature of the problem. When the council had the opportunity to review their practice at stage one in the complaints process, they declined to take further action based on information obtained four months previously. They also were late in acknowledging Miss C's complaint, and late in responding to her. The council explained that an extension had been agreed with Miss C, but acknowledged that they had not confirmed this in writing and therefore had no evidence of this. We upheld all aspects of Miss C's complaint and recommended that a full and sincere apology was offered for all failings by the council. We also noted that the council had advised that training on communication had been carried out and we asked them for evidence that this training was undertaken.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for:
• the unacceptable delay dealing with her repair
• the poor level of service provided, including the failings in communication and the failings in their response to her complaint
• the level of stress and upset this caused Miss C.
• The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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 is a council tenant and complained to the council about their failure to respond appropriately to his reports of his neighbour's anti-social behaviour. Mr C had been reporting anti-social behaviour for a number of years and the council started to take formal proceedings against the neighbour, however they stopped the action at a point, as they said that they received no further reports of anti-social behaviour from Mr C.

Mr C disputed this and received confirmation from Police Scotland of a number of reports that they had passed onto the council after the point when they had stopped the formal proceedings against the neighbour. Mr C complained that the council failed to inform him that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour.

In response to our investigation, the council acknowledged that they failed to investigate Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour. They also acknowledged that they should have informed Mr C that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour. The council confirmed that they were reviewing their anti-social behaviour procedures and they invited Mr C to a meeting so that they can apologise and discuss his concerns. We upheld Mr C's complaints and asked the council to provide evidence of the action they said they would take.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should apologise to Mr C for their failings and invite Mr C to a meeting to discuss his concerns further should he wish to accept.

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 made reports to the council of breaches of planning control. Some action was undertaken but Mr C was concerned that correspondence with him, and the action being taken, stopped abruptly. After a gap of a few months, Mr C contacted the council again. He was told that the officer who had been responsible for his case had been absent from work on a long-term basis and that a review of their caseload had not uncovered the case Mr C was involved in as one requiring further action. The council apologised for this and began further action on the matter. Mr C continued to correspond and submitted information requests. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions and raised his complaints with us.

Mr C complained to us that the council did not take reasonable action following his reports of breaches of planning control. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council's actions regarding the breaches of planning control Mr C reported were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint about this.

Mr C also complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to his correspondence or his complaints. We found that there had been delays and confusion around providing responses to Mr C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, as the council had already taken steps to remedy these matters, we did not make any additional recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained about how her application for accessible housing points (points awarded to someone to help them find an alternative property, on the basis that their current home is not suitable for their needs) was assessed.

We found that the council had appropriately arranged for an assessment by an occupational therapist. We found that this was in line with the council's procedures. We also found that, when Ms C had requested another assessment a year later, this was provided. The amount of points awarded was increased following this second assessment, as Ms C's ability to carry out normal tasks in her current home had deteriorated. We considered that this was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

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.