SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of her clients, Mr and Mrs A. Mr and Mrs A were unhappy with the council's actions relating to a compulsory purchase order and repairs to a core path. A number of the issues complained of occurred outwith the last twelve months and we did not pursue those matters further. We upheld a complaint that the council failed to advise Mr and Mrs A promptly when the council revised their view on repairing the core path and began to consider a compulsory purchase order. We recommended that the council apologise to Mr and Mrs A for this delay, which they did. We did not uphold complaints about the council's overall communication with Mr and Mrs A.

Mr and Mrs C complained that their landlord, the council, failed to take reasonable steps to carry out appropriate plumbing repairs to clear a blocked pipe in their property. We found that there were a number of failings by the council who accepted that the blocked drain should have been treated as an emergency repair and dealt with within 24 hours. However, the council changed the repair category to 'urgent' which meant that it took several days for the blocked drain to be cleared. We considered that it was unsatisfactory that the council were unable to supply evidence of the reason the category had been changed. The council also failed to jet the drains although they claimed they had done so. Mr and Mrs C had also made a claim to the council for a new cooker, as they said their cooker had suffered water damage, which was rejected by the council's claim handlers. The council accepted they had initially provided inaccurate information to their claims handlers but we were satisfied that the correct information was latterly supplied by the council and that Mr and Mrs C's claim was reassessed. However, we were unable to determine whether the damage to the cooker was caused by the blocked drain. We found that the repair to the blocked drain was a qualifying repair under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 Right to Repair Scheme. In terms of the scheme, secure tenants have the right to compensation if certain repairs are not carried out by their landlord within a given timescale. As we considered the council failed to take reasonable steps to carry out the appropriate plumbing repairs within the required timescale, we found that Mr and Mrs C were entitled to receive compensation for the inconvenience caused. We made a number of recommendations to the council.

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to properly consider a planning application to build a house next door to their property. They said that their objections had not been properly taken into account and that the council failed to implement the terms of the permission granted in a reasonable way. They said that their amenity and enjoyment of their home had been detrimentally affected. They alleged that their representations about this were not dealt with properly. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and we found that, in initially considering the planning application, the council had dealt with it both reasonably and appropriately; Mr and Mrs C's objections were taken into account and permission was granted subject to conditions. Thereafter, as works progressed, Mr and Mrs C brought the council's attention to the fact that not all the conditions were being complied with. The council decided to pursue a negotiated settlement with the developer (rather than to take enforcement action), which they were entitled to do. There was no evidence that Mr and Mrs C's representations were ignored although it was clear that they were not dealt with in the way that Mr and Mrs C would have preferred. The complaint was not upheld. Related reading View Decision Report 201407128 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us about the council’s handling of his tenant’s application for Local Housing Allowance (LHA). There were significant delays in the processing of the application, and Mr C completed a form to ensure that the first payment was made directly to him. However, a computer system fault meant that the first payment went directly to the tenant’s bank account, instead of to Mr C. When Mr C asked the council about what was happening, the system fault was identified. It also appeared that the council had inappropriately made a second payment to the tenant. While the council were responding to Mr C’s complaint, they provided varying explanations about the second payment, but eventually provided payment of this smaller sum to Mr C. However, they said that they were unable to pay Mr C the first payment, as this payment had already been made to the tenant, and it was Mr C's responsibility to seek payment from his tenant. We found that the council delayed in processing the application, and there were then faults with the payment system. We found that it would have been reasonable for the council to make the first payment directly to Mr C, but they should have confirmed with the tenant that he had not already paid any rent for this period. We were also critical of the council's handling of Mr C’s complaint. They did not identify the complaint appropriately, or respond within their stated timescales. They also did not tell Mr C why the investigation was taking longer or when he could expect a response. We also identified failures with the way the council responded to the complaint, giving Mr C inconsistent information.

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of an application for local housing allowance (LHA) from the tenants of his flat. As landlord, Mr C became concerned when his tenants were late with their rent payment. He requested the council pay the LHA directly to him, and submitted appropriate evidence. They assured him he would receive the appropriate payment when they had processed his application. Two months later the council processed the tenants' claim for LHA, along with Mr C's claim for direct payments and found that the tenants were already receiving payments for a previous tenancy. Mr C, therefore, only received a payment for two weeks' rent, as that was the amount of LHA outstanding at the time of processing. The council admitted that there were delays in processing the LHA claim. However, they said that they could not make further payments as the tenants had received appropriate LHA payments and they could not raise further payments for the account. We confirmed that the council delayed in processing both claims. We found that this led them to provide Mr C with inaccurate information, and to continue payments to the tenants even when Mr C had provided sufficient evidence of rent arrears. We concluded that, as the council were responsible for these failures, they should pay Mr C the equivalent of the LHA payments made after his application for direct payments.

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his tenant's application for Local Housing Allowance (LHA). When his tenant failed to pay the rent, Mr C phoned the council. He was told that there were delays in processing the application, but that when it was done, he would receive a payment directly. The council finished processing the application some four months after it was submitted. However, a computer system fault meant that the first payment went directly to the tenant's bank account, instead of Mr C's. Mr C did not know this, and when he had still not received payment several weeks later, he made a further enquiry. It then became apparent what had happened, but by this time a further rent payment had gone to the tenant. We found that the council gave Mr C inaccurate information about applying for direct payments. They delayed in processing the application, and there were then faults with the payment system. We found that it would have been reasonable for the council to make the first payment directly to Mr C, and they should have confirmed with the tenant that he had not already paid any rent for this period. We were also critical of the council's handling of Mr C's complaint. They did not respond within their stated timescales, and did not tell Mr C why the investigation was taking longer or when he could expect a response. We also identified failures with the way the council responded to the complaint, in their decision-making and their use of evidence - they relied too heavily on unreliable evidence from the tenant. We also found that they did not provide Mr C with consistent information.

Mrs C, a tenant of the council, complained about difficulties arranging repairs to her home. Mrs C said there were delays in carrying out several repairs, and the council failed to return her calls or communicate with her, except when she made formal complaints. Mrs C was also concerned that her energy costs for the year were very high, which she thought could be due to the delays in repairs to windows and doors, or to a fault in her boiler (which was not inspected by the council for two months after she reported it). The council accepted that their communication was poor, and apologised to Mrs C for this. However, the council said that the energy costs could not have been affected by the faulty boiler, as this would have used less, not more, electricity. After investigating these issues, we upheld Mrs C's complaints. There was no evidence that the faulty boiler increased Mrs C's energy costs and, while the delays in repairing the doors and windows might have affected her heating costs, it was not possible to determine this for certain. However, we found that there was unreasonable delay in the council inspecting Mrs C's faulty boiler, as well as in carrying out several repairs to her house. We also found that the council did not respond reasonably to Mrs C's attempts to contact them, except when she made formal complaints.

Mr and Mrs C's son was not allocated a place at their first choice of nursery, and they couple complained that the council did not follow their policy in terms of deadlines for applications and allocation meeting dates when places were allocated. The council investigated Mr and Mrs C's complaint, and advised that they had exhausted the appeals process as laid out in the nursery education admission policy and both stages of the council's complaints procedure. Mr C then brought his complaint to us. We reviewed the correspondence between him and the council, as well as council policies on the allocation of nursery places and complaints handling, and considered the management of waiting lists and the introduction of new policy. We found that the council had operated allocations and nursery place waiting lists in line with policy and, responding to parental feedback, had taken steps to anticipate changes being introduced in their new policy. We found that Mr C's son was not disadvantaged by the council's actions. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we found that the council's responses to it were sometimes confusing and contradictory, and so we made a recommendation.

Mr C complained to the council that a survey they had undertaken about the introduction and location of glass recycling banks at the apartment blocks he lives in was not carried out in line with their plan for local involvement. The council told him that they considered the consultation had met the terms of the plan. Mr C was dissatisfied and complained to us. The council's plan said that three weeks would be given for individuals to respond to surveys, but only two weeks had been given in this case. The plan also said that relevant groups would be consulted, but the residents' association for the apartment blocks were not consulted. The council said that they did not consider this necessary as all residents were sent surveys to complete. However, the council provided no evidence to indicate that this, or any aspect of the local involvement plan, was considered before undertaking the survey. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Mr C moved into a property as part of a house swap. He said that it was not habitable because of damp, condensation and mould, and that this affected his and his family’s health. He told us that the council delayed in sorting out the problems and in responding to his complaints, and did not decant (temporarily move) them into another property. Mr C also complained that when he sent an insurance claim to the council for items damaged by damp and mould, the council and/or their insurers did not take full account of his evidence when they assessed the damage. He eventually moved his family to a privately rented property. Our investigation found that, although no solution was found while the family were in the property, the council did not delay in trying to address the problems, so we did not uphold that complaint. We did uphold the complaint about decanting. The council told us that they considered moving the family, but decided it was not necessary because the type of work needed did not require this. They could not, however, show us evidence to support their decision. Although we cannot look at the amount of an insurance award, we can look at the decision-making process that led to it. After a considerable amount of discussion with the council, in which both we and they took legal advice, they provided us with evidence about that process in relation to Mr C's claim. Having reviewed this, we took the view that the insurers had given the council all the relevant information. We did, however, find some failings and delays in responding to Mr C's complaints.

After his circumstances changed, Mr C felt that he could no longer remain in his privately rented accommodation. He was finding his situation very stressful due to mental health problems. He approached the council for assistance but he complained that the way they processed his housing application was unreasonable. He also said that they failed to follow proper processes, delayed in allowing him access to their web-based portal service and wrongly said that he had failed to obtain permission to tape a meeting. He said that the council's handling of his complaint to them about this was inadequate. When investigating the complaint, we considered the complaints correspondence, details of Mr C's housing application, copies of the council's internal records and the council's housing allocations policy. We also contacted Mr C's community psychiatric nurse. Our investigation found that the council followed their procedures when dealing with Mr C's application and that taking his health problems into account they had, with his agreement, made arrangements for him to stay longer in his privately rented accommodation. Although Mr C was clear that he had requested the council's permission to tape a meeting he had with their officer, we found no written evidence of this. We did not uphold either of these complaints, but we did uphold the other three. There was clear evidence that the council's communication with Mr C was poor. The council acknowledged this and had apologised. There was also evidence that there was delay in allowing Mr C access to their portal helpline service, and in responding to his complaint.

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not reasonably investigate reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour, who is a council tenant, and about whom there had been many other complaints. Ms C wrote to the council several times, then contact stopped for a year, by the end of which Mr and Mrs A had moved. When Ms C first contacted us over a year after that, we told her that she would first need to complain through the council’s complaints procedures. She did so, and then complained again to us. We suspended our consideration of the complaint to allow further information to be supplied, explaining to Ms C that we could normally only look at a complaint about something that had happened, or that she had found out about, within the last twelve months. When we re-opened her complaint, we found we were effectively restricted to looking into matters for about a seven month period, until before Mr and Mrs A moved out. We considered the council’s actions during that period, and found that they had issued a final warning to the tenant. Our investigation did not find this unreasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201205406 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaints about noise from a nearby factory, in particular their handling of her concerns about night-time noise. Mrs C was also concerned about how they dealt with her complaint about their handling of the matter. During our investigation we received evidence of the council's investigations in response to the complaints of noise nuisance, including carrying out noise measurements inside Mrs C's property. The council explained that, while they recognised that the noise disturbed Mrs C, they were unable to take any formal action as they were unable to establish that a statutory noise nuisance existed. The council had worked with the owner of the factory to carry out works on a voluntary basis but unfortunately these had not helped. On balance, we upheld the complaint about the council's complaints handling, as we found that they failed to handle Mrs C's initial concerns in line with their complaints procedure. We noted, however, that their later handling of the complaint was in line with their procedure, and we were satisfied that they responded reasonably to the issues she raised, so we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations about this. Related reading View Decision Report 201203733 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council's administration of his application for housing benefit was unreasonable. He felt, for various reasons, that they had made unreasonable demands for information from him and his wife. Because their circumstances had changed, he and his wife were asked to complete a case review form. As a result of the information they included on the form, the council asked for further information about the accounts he and his wife had their state pensions paid into. Mr C was unhappy about having to provide them with this and did not send it at first. The council had given an interim award of housing benefit, but stopped it when they did not receive the further information they had requested. When Mr C provided it, the council processed his application and backdated the award. After considering all the relevant paperwork, we did not find any evidence that the council had administered Mr C's application unreasonably. Under the relevant regulations (the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006), they were entitled to ask for this information. Although there were a couple of instances where the council could have been clearer about the information they wanted, they provided clear and correct information to Mr C at least eight times. Unfortunately, it was the delay in providing the council with that information that caused the delay in him and his wife receiving their housing benefit award. Related reading View Decision Report 201301723 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to consult with the local community when they imposed a planning obligation on a developer. He said that the community should be consulted and have a say on where the resources agreed as part of this planning obligation should be allocated. The council had explained to Mr C that planning obligations are imposed on developers to mitigate against the direct impact a development may have on an area. This could include the impact on infrastructure, local facilities or the environment, and in this case the planning obligation was to mitigate against environmental impact. They also explained that planning law and the relevant Scottish Government planning circular did not require consultation with the community when setting planning obligations. We considered the information submitted in support of the complaint and the council's response, and reviewed the relevant legislation and planning circulars. Having done so, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that what the council had said was correct, and that there was no duty on them to consult the community in this respect. Related reading View Decision Report 201301815 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Since Mrs C and her family moved into a council flat, she had complained about noise from a neighbour. After one particular incident, she applied for rehousing, supported by her GP and health visitor. A multi-agency case conference considered the circumstances of her request, but decided not to award social housing points that would have given her higher priority for a move. Mrs C continued to complain about noise and other disturbances. She pursued a formal complaint through the council’s complaints procedures, then complained to us that the council had unreasonably failed to take action on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. Our investigation found that the council had monitored the noise twice, but did not find it to be at levels that constituted a statutory nuisance. An acoustic test found that impact noise insulation levels did not meet current building standards, but as these would have complied at the time the houses were built the council decided to take no action. Mrs C and her husband were made the offer of another property but declined it as unsuitable. We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint, as our investigation found that the reports of noise had been properly recorded and appropriately investigated. Related reading View Decision Report 201204113 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A who were council tenants experiencing noise disturbance from their neighbours. Although council officers visited the house, their visits did not coincide with times when the neighbours were being noisy, and they concluded that the noise levels were not significant enough to be classed as anti-social. They later provided noise monitoring equipment, but again found the noise levels too low to be considered a nuisance. The council suggested several times that Mr and Mrs A go to mediation with their neighbours to try to resolve this. However, Mr and Mrs A were advised not to do so, on medical grounds. Instead, the council arranged for shuttle mediation, where the mediator meets with both parties separately. Mr C complained that the council did not take Mr and Mrs A's complaints seriously, failed to record their concerns and did not take effective action to resolve the situation. He also complained that he was refused access to the results of the noise monitoring surveys. We acknowledged that situations such as this are difficult to resolve. Mr and Mrs A were clearly badly affected by the noise. However, for the council to take decisive action, they needed corroboration of the problem and evidence that the noise was at a level that would be considered anti-social. We were provided with records kept by Mr and Mrs A and witness statements that provided general corroboration of the problem, but did not confirm specific incidents or the severity of the noise. Where proof was available, however, our investigation found there was evidence that the council took action. We were generally satisfied that they took reasonable steps to investigate the noise, and we noted that they also considered whether there was a problem with the construction of the properties. Whether or not the noise was anti-social was a matter for the professional judgement of the council's noise officers and we were satisfied that they reached a reasoned

Mr C complained that the council used incorrect roads design guidance when assessing his planning application. He believed they used local guidance rather than the correct national planning policy when considering the application. In addition, he complained that the council used unrepresentative accident statistics when assessing the safety of his proposed access way. The council also cited a high average traffic speed as a concern to be considered when assessing the application, and Mr C believed this to be unfair. He said that if drivers were breaking the speed limit, the council should have taken steps to reduce this offence through enforcement and traffic management. Finally, he complained that they failed to provide a reasonable response to his complaint. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the national policy he quoted was the correct one for assessing this issue. However, the policy allows councils flexibility and acknowledges the importance of local design guidance, which may also be used. We found no evidence to show that the council had used unreasonable accident statistics - those they used were obtained from the police. In addition, Mr C's agent had also provided his own road safety figures to the planning review committee for consideration. Finally we found that the council did not accept that the road was unsafe, rather they were of the view that the proposed access could not safely be introduced at that site. We highlighted to Mr C that the enforcement of speed limits was a matter for the police. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council considered these issues, and that they had explained their reasons for the way they did so in responding to the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201204010 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council failed to provide her with an adequate repairs service to her council property. She said that, since moving into her home in 2007, she had reported numerous problems requiring attention. She said that the quality of the repairs carried out by the council was inadequate and the repairs appointment service was poor. Our investigation found that over the five years concerned there were some occasions when the council cancelled repairs appointments and others where they were unable to gain access to Ms C's property. Given the time period involved, the number of occasions where appointments were not kept, by either party, did not seem unreasonable. We noted that the council had explained that they had raised the issue of timescales for appointments with their staff, that further training would be provided and that they apologised for their failings in this area. They had also advised staff to ensure that all future repair work involved a suitable appointment to minimise disruption, and highlighted the need for better communication. In terms of the quality of the repairs, however, the evidence suggested that over an 18-month period there were numerous occasions when Ms C reported unsatisfactory repairs or inadequacies in the repairs service. We were concerned that the council did not appear to have a record of these reported concerns, when Ms C's emails clearly showed that she had made them aware of the issues at the time. Although we noted that in their responses to Ms C's formal complaint the council expressed concerns about the length of time it took for some repairs to be done and that they had highlighted this with staff, we upheld the complaint as the evidence suggested that the council did fail to provide Ms C with an adequate repairs service over this period. In our decision on this case, we made reference to remedial action that the council said they had taken as a result of Ms C's formal complaint. When we asked them to provide e

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow procedure when dealing with a noise nuisance complaint against her. She said the council did not provide her with a statement of complaint and did not allow her to read and sign their summary of the interview. She said she was not allowed to make her own statement or provide evidence to the council and that they decided to issue her with a written warning before they interviewed her. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to acknowledge or investigate equalities issues that she raised with them. We upheld both of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation showed that the information recorded at the time of the interview was very brief and that subsequent notes contained incorrect information on the complaint and failed to specify key details, including the actual times the incidents were alleged to have taken place. We, therefore, concluded that the council failed to provide Mrs C with the required details of the complaint against her. The evidence also suggested that Mrs C was not given the opportunity to read or sign a statement or summary of the interview. We noted, however, that Mrs C was given some opportunity to provide her version of events to council officers during the interview and that there was no evidence to suggest that she was not allowed to provide evidence to the council. There was also no evidence to suggest that the council decided to issue Mrs C with a written warning before the time of the interview. On the equalities matter, our investigation found that the council did acknowledge the equalities issues Mrs C raised but failed to take appropriate steps to investigate her concerns.

Mr C complained on behalf of the residents of his street about noise disturbance from a nearby construction site. A supermarket was being built, and Mr C's complaints centred around early morning and/or late night working and deliveries; failure to enforce adherence to planning conditions; failure to monitor and/or enforce action on breaches of conditions; failure to address his complaints; and communication issues. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from our planning adviser, concluded that there had been some communication issues and failures in complaints handling. However, on the majority of complaints we found that the council had taken reasonable and proportionate action to monitor the site. When Mr C first complained about early/late working, the council investigated and then issued a notice to restrict the times of certain types of work and/or deliveries to the site. While there were some breaches of these conditions, we found that the monitoring action taken by the council, which included unannounced site visits, was reasonable and proportionate. We upheld two of Mr C's nine complaints, about shortcomings in correspondence and about a council official's meeting with the residents.

Mr C complained that the council failed to take adequate action after he reported noise nuisance from his neighbour. The council's anti-social behaviour case management procedure outlines the action the council can take in response to evidence of anti-social behaviour. This includes considering an acceptable behaviour agreement, making a referral to the mediation service, asking their noise team to monitor the situation, calling a case conference, joint working with their conflict resolution service, and issuing warning notices or advisory warnings. We found that the council had issued warning notices to Mr C's neighbour and had signed him up to an acceptable behaviour agreement. The council also told us that Mr C did not engage with the conflict resolution team and had rejected an offer of mediation. There was evidence that the council's noise team had attended Mr C's property. Although this did not initially resolve the problem, we were satisfied that the council took action in line with their procedures. Mr C also told us that a member of the council's staff incorrectly told him that that he would be rehoused quickly if he applied for other housing. We found no evidence that the officer had said this. However, the council had told Mr C that they would update him when they had investigated this, and although they did investigate, they failed to update him of this due to an oversight. Mr C also complained that the council had accused him of failing to attend a meeting, when he had already told them that he would not be attending. However, we found no evidence of this.

Mr C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained to us on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) about the council's handling of her tenancy of a council property. Ms A had accepted and signed the tenancy agreement but handed the keys back the next day with a signed notice of termination of tenancy. Ms A was unhappy that, although she had the keys to the property for less than 24 hours, she then received an invoice for a full month's rent. She said that despite signing both the agreement and the notice of termination which had stated that 28 days' notice was required, she had been verbally assured that she would not have to pay the one month's notice. Ms A was also unhappy that a council tax debt for the property was referred to sheriff officers. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that there were no notes of the conversations between the council and Ms A. The council said that they had not given her such verbal assurance, and that the 28 days' notice would only be waived in very exceptional circumstances and would need the approval of senior management. Senior management had in fact considered the request but had decided that the 28 day rent period would be charged. The council said that as Ms A had had the keys for 24 hours they needed to start the 'void' process again to allow safety checks to be carried out. (A 'void' is a property that does not have a current tenancy). The council did say that they would expect there to be a record of conversations of a significant nature. We were critical of the fact that there were no notes in this case, but noted that the council had taken action to address this matter. Overall, we found that there was not enough evidence for us to say for sure that an assurance had been given to Ms A that her rent period would be waived. When we looked at the issue about council tax, we found that although the council had resolved the matter by awarding a discount and cancelling the account, Ms A was still unhappy w

Ms C rented a property from a housing association. She claimed housing and council tax benefit from the council. Ms C thought that she was charged too much rent because the housing benefit department did not include an amount for a service charge on her tenancy. She said that she had asked for an explanation of her rent but they did not provide it. In early 2010, the council carried out a joint investigation with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which found that Ms C was not entitled to all the benefits she had been receiving. This meant that the DWP wanted to recover incapacity benefit, and the council wanted to recover housing and council tax benefit from her. Ms C told us that she wrote to the council saying that she wanted to appeal, and they said that they would pass this to the tribunal service. However, they did not do so, as they said that the DWP could not confirm that Ms C had appealed the incapacity benefit decision. The council said that, as it was the primary benefit, Ms C needed to appeal it first before appealing the other benefits. They began recovering overpayments of housing and council tax benefit. Ms C had, in fact, appealed the DWP decision but they had overlooked this until November 2010. In December 2010, it went in front of an appeal tribunal, which upheld the original decision. In May 2011, however, the council found that the DWP had accepted a further appeal out-of-time. On that basis, the council suspended the recovery of housing and council tax benefit. Ms C asked them to make a discretionary housing payment to write off these two benefit overpayments, but the council told her that they could not consider a discretionary payment for this purpose. Ms C made a further application for a discretionary housing payment in September 2011, as she was suffering hardship. The council did not respond as they were waiting for the outcome of Ms C's incapacity benefit appeal before making a decision. In January 2012, the inca

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council failed to provide them with a house that was suitably sound insulated, and failed to take effective action when they reported antisocial behaviour by a number of neighbours. The council explained that they carried out appropriate tests and could confirm that the house met the relevant standards in terms of sound insulation. They also explained that they had taken action in line with their policies in response to all Mr C and Ms C's reports of antisocial behaviour. We did not uphold the complaint as, from our review of the evidence, we found that the council carried out appropriate testing on Mr C and Ms C's home which complied with the relevant technical specifications. In addition, we reviewed their actions in response to Mr C and Ms C's complaints of antisocial behaviour and established that each report was investigated and, where corroboration could be obtained, action was indeed taken, in line with their antisocial behaviour policies. Related reading View Decision Report 201201692 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018