Local Government

Summary

Ms C moved to a new property through a mutual exchange. She complained to the council about repairs that were outstanding and the overall condition of the house. The council arranged for a building condition survey to be carried out, and it found that a number of significant structural repairs had to be carried out, including an internal wall which had to be rebuilt. Ms C had been told by the council, prior to moving in, that the wall would be rebuilt and that all outstanding repairs would be completed.

Ms C was also concerned that she was not given the opportunity to view the property before she accepted it. Ms C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct policy and procedure regarding the mutual exchange, and that they failed to ensure the property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in carrying out the agreed repairs to the property in line with their policies.

In response to our investigation, the council told us that it was not standard procedure for a tenant to be offered the opportunity to view the property before a mutual exchange. However, they have since updated their policy to ensure that this happens. We found that even though the mutual exchange inspection by the housing officer confirmed that the property was in good condition, the property should not, in fact, have been approved for exchange. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs for Ms C and that the council had acknowledged this. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for not making appropriate checks to ensure the property was up to standard and for the delay in completing repairs. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The inspection policy for mutual exchanges should ensure that properties are properly inspected by a qualified officer and provided to tenants in a structurally sound condition.

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 about the way the council handled a complaint he had made. He said it had taken too long for the council to respond, and that they unreasonably failed to progress his complaint to the next stage even though he indicated he was still dissatisfied.

We found that although Mr C was clearly dissatisfied with the council’s response generally, his correspondence with them did not clearly state that he wanted to take his complaint to the next stage. We found that whilst he could have made this clearer, best practice would have been for the council to check this with him on receipt of his email.

We found that the council then missed further opportunities to check whether Mr C wanted to progress his complaint, as they should have done. Consequently, Mr C's complaint as not addressed in a timely fashion.

We upheld Mr C's complaint but decided, on balance, not to make any specific recommendation. However, we did ask the council, in conjunction with the senior manager or managers responsible for handling complaints, to identify any further learning and improvement in a proportionate way.

Summary

Mr C reported concerns to the council about out of control dogs and possible breaches of a dog control notice. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions in relation to the reports and continued to communicate with them. He said that a council officer responded inappropriately in an email to him, implicitly threatening legal action. He complained to the council about these matters and the council responded saying that they considered that their actions had been reasonable. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

We found that the council failed to reasonably consider his reports or to give him reasonable advice or information about their consideration of his reports. We found that the response to the email was inappropriate. We found that the council's handling of Mr C's complaints was not reasonable as they did not follow their complaints handling procedure and made statements that led to confusion about their powers. We upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to reasonably investigate his reports and for the inappropriate content of an email they sent to Mr C. Further apologise for failing to reasonably handle or respond to Mr C's complaints. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• In response to every report of out of control dogs or potential breaches of dog control notices, council staff should properly advise members of the public making such reports about:
• whether reports should be made to other authorities
• what kind of evidence the council requires to take action
• what investigations the council intend to take and the reasons for those
• the progress of such considerations or investigations
• the conclusions of such considerations or investigations and as much information as possible about what further action they intend to take.
• Council staff should be aware of the council’s expected standards of communication with members of the public.
• The council’s written statements should be clear and unambiguous.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be properly acknowledged, responded to, investigated and followed up on, in line with the council’s complaints handling procedure.

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 and Mrs C were living in temporary accommodation while they were on the council's housing list for permanent accommodation. When a first floor flat was offered, Mrs C contacted the council to discuss the offer. Mrs C's health condition had deteriorated and she had started to experience difficulty with climbing stairs. As this was new information to the council, they required Mrs C to provide further information about this from a medical professional. Mrs C complained that the council required her to provide a letter from her GP, which would cost her £25. Mrs C said she believed the council's policy states that they will obtain further information about a medical condition if it is required.

The council responded to the complaint and advised that Mrs C was not requested to specifically go to her GP, but to obtain information from a medical professional. The council contacted the GP to request a refund of the £25 but this was refused.

Mrs C also complained that the council did not keep her properly informed of what was happening next regarding the property offer. She told us she knew she was required to accept the first offer of housing made to her, yet she knew she could not accept the first offer as it was on the first floor. The council confirmed with Mr and Mrs C that the first floor property was no longer appropriate and they would remain on the housing list for a permanent property with ground floor accommodation.

Our investigation found the council's policy does clearly state that if they require further information from a medical professional, they would request this information. We could not establish whether Mrs C was in fact asked to specifically contact her GP, or to contact a medical professional. We upheld this complaint, however we could not recommend a refund of £25 due to not being able to establish what was said.

Our investigation also found the council did keep Mr and Mrs C informed of the next steps. The council wrote to Mr and Mrs C and confirmed the housing offer would be withdrawn because it was no longer suitable and they would remain on the housing list for more appropriate accommodation. We found the council's level of communication to be clear and reasonable. Therefore we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for not clearly explaining that they should request the information they required from a medical professional. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: https://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 had an occupational therapy assessment which recommended changes to his bathroom, including a new shower. The council facilitated the appointment of a contractor to do the work, although the instruction and contract for the work was between Mr C and the contractor. The council gave a grant for part of the work. Once the work was complete, the council inspected the work and signed it off as complete. Mr C was unhappy with the quality of the workmanship. He had an architect inspect the work and his report indicated that the installation was dangerous. Mr C felt that the council were ignoring this report and complained that the council failed to properly ensure that the work done in his bathroom met his assessed need before signing it off as complete.

We investigated Mr C's complaint in relation to the council's role and obligations. We explained that we could not consider a complaint about the contractor and the quality of workmanship by them as, ultimately, he had instructed the contractor and the contract for work was between him and them.

In investigating the complaint, we reviewed the documentation and information provided by Mr C and the council. We also reviewed the council’s ‘Scheme of Assistance for Private Homeowners and Tenants of Private Landlords’ (the SoA) which sets out the process to the followed by the council. The SoA indicated that, when work was complete, an occupational therapy visit should take place to make sure that the adaptation meets the client's assessed needs. A final inspection by the private sector housing team should also take place. Generally speaking, we considered that the council had fulfilled these obligations. We noted that there was no evidence that Mr C had raised concerns that his assessed needs were not met at the final inspection and we considered that the council's responses to his subsequent concerns had been reasonable. For these reasons, we decided not to uphold his complaint.

We did have concerns that following their visit to Mr C, the occupational therapist did not record or inform the private sector housing team whether or not they were satisfied that the adaptation met the his assessed needs and, therefore, the council could not fully demonstrate compliance with the process set out in the SoA. We also felt that the council’s SoA and associated paperwork did not accurately reflect the council’s current handling of these cases and did not provide clear information about their limited role. We made recommendations as a result.

Recommendations

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

• To show compliance with the process set out in the Council’s Scheme of Assistance, following their visit, the occupational therapist should clearly record and inform the Private Sector Housing Team whether or not they are satisfied that the adaptations meets the client’s assessed needs.
• The council should review their SoA (specifically in sections 3.1.6 to 3.2.2) and associated paperwork and make sure that they accurately reflect the council’s current handling, as well as providing clear information about their limited role.

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

Mrs C made a complaint about the length of time it was taking the council to complete a rendering repair at her property. She was having a longstanding problem with parts of rendering coming away and she was of the view that the council were only completing temporary repairs.

The council confirmed that they had conducted repairs as required and that the larger repair of re-roughcasting was of a cost that meant a tendering process was required. This had caused the delays in the repair being carried out as the tendering process was extended beyond its original expected deadline.

We investigated the case and from the evidence provided by the council, it was determined that repairs for rendering and guttering was classed as planned repairs and did not have a definitive timeline for completion. We considered that the council had taken Mrs C's complaints seriously as they were putting the larger, re-rendering job out to tender as this was deemed appropriate to fully resolve the ongoing repair issues she had been experiencing. We noted that delays in the tendering process were acknowledged and that re-roughcasting was due to take place for the whole block within the next financial year. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council were unreasonable in their refusal to suspend their debt-collection proceedings to allow her to provide evidence of her entitlement to a single person's discount for her council tax. She also complained that the council unreasonably refused to refund the full amount of the fees that she incurred.

We did not uphold Mrs C's concerns about the debt collection proceedings because the evidence showed that the council acted in line with the requirements of the Local Government Finance Act (1992) and took reasonable steps to check whether or not Mrs C was entitled to the single-person discount.

We also found that the council acted reasonably in respect of their refusal to refund the fees incurred by Mrs C. The council acted in accordance with their legal responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action in response to reports of bullying of Mr C's daughter at her school. Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to his subsequent complaints.

We did not uphold Mr C's concerns about the actions taken concerning the bullying because the evidence showed that the actions taken by the school were in line with the steps set out in the council's policy.

We noted that the council failed to process Mr C's complaint in line with the requirements of their complaints procedure. The complaint was not acknowledged within the required timescale and the council failed to keep Mr C informed about an extension to the complaint investigation, although the actual investigation itself was carried out to a reasonable standard. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably rejected his planning application on the basis of reasons which were outwith their jurisdiction. He said that as a result he had to appeal to the local review body, who granted consent, and that this process resulted in additional costs for him.

We found that the council rejected the application on grounds which did not appear to fall within the remit of the planning authority. The rejection focused on an element of the application which related to the marine environment and which was subject to licensing through Marine Scotland, rather than the planning authority. We noted that, where there was doubt about jurisdiction, this should be reflected in the planning officer's report and that this did not happen in this case. We also noted that no reference to the relevant Scottish Government planning circular was made in the officer's report and that the officer failed to fully explain their assessment of the proposals against the planning policy which was used to refuse the application. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for their decision to refuse planning permission on grounds which fell outwith their jurisdiction; and
• reflect on their handling of Mr C's planning application and consider how best to ensure that officers are clear as to the implications of Circular 1/2015 and their responsibilities to justify decisions detailed in their reports in terms of all relevant planning policies.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide a clear and understandable explanation for the council tax changes on her account over a five-month period. She also complained that the council failed to adequately communicate with her following her contact with them over a ten-month period.

We found that while the council had, following our enquiries, been able to provide us with as clear and understandable an explanation as possible, they had not done so for Miss C. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

We noted that the council had not provided either Miss C or us with an explanation for reassessing her council tax on one specific occasion. We also felt that, when it became apparent to the council that the information they were providing was not clear to Miss C, it would have been helpful for them to consider alternative means of communicating this information, for example through a face-to-face discussion. We made recommendations to address these issues.

In relation to Miss C's contact with the council, the council had already recognised that they had provided a poor level of service to Miss C and had apologised to her. We upheld Miss C's complaint. We identified three specific areas where the council's service had been poor and made recommendations accordingly.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Miss C with a clear explanation for reassessing her council tax;
• remind the relevant complaints handling staff to consider all means of resolving a complaint, including face-to-face discussion with the complainant;
• apologise to Miss C for failing to provide a clear and understandable explanation for changes to her council tax; and
• review the circumstances giving rise to the three service issues identified by the council and provide us with evidence that they have taken action to prevent a similar situation occurring in future.