SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council as they were unhappy with the way their child (child A) was dealt with when they suffered a head injury at their primary school. The head injury occurred when child A fell during playtime. Following the injury they were confused, distressed, and were suffering from loss of memory. Mr and Mrs C felt that an ambulance should have been called immediately. Instead, the school observed child A for a short time, before calling Mr and Mrs C and asking them to pick child A up and take them to the GP. This meant that there was a period of around 45 minutes from the injury occurring to them attending to pick up their child. Mr and Mrs C complained that the relevant council procedure was not appropriately followed when the school were dealing with child A's head injury. Mr and Mrs C were also dissatisfied with the standard of the council's complaints handling. The council provided us with a copy of their Accidents to Pupils procedure, which instructed staff on when emergency medical assistance should be sought for head injuries, as well as providing more general guidance about how injured children should be transported to hospital if medical treatment not needing an ambulance was required. The procedure said that an ambulance should be called immediately where: the child was unconscious for any length of time; the child was vomiting frequently; neck pain was associated with the injury; or where the child's condition was 'giving cause for concern'. It appeared clear from the council's records that staff were concerned by child A's condition. This is why staff requested the child was collected and taken to their GP. However, the procedure required that they should have called an ambulance or, if they did not consider their condition serious enough to warrant emergency transport, they should have arranged for them to be transported directly to hospital by taxi or a member of staff's personal vehicle. Instead, they attempted to

Mr C complained about the way the council handled complaints he had made. Firstly, Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to investigate his complaints about a member of staff regarding the treatment of his son at school and the way this had been investigated. We identified that the council had already undertaken a number of investigations in relation to matters concerning Mr C's son's treatment at school and the way in which subsequent investigations were dealt with. This had included some investigation of the member of staff Mr C had specific concerns about. We considered the council's refusal to investigate Mr C's complaints further to be reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that, when the council contacted him to tell him that they would not be investigating his complaints, they said that they had 'comprehensively' scrutinised his complaints about his son's treatment at school, and the subsequent investigations. Mr C complained that this unreasonably implied that his complaints about the staff member had already been comprehensively scrutinised, and that this was not the case. We considered that the council were referring to matters more broadly, noting that the matters that they said had been comprehensively scrutinised encompassed some of Mr C's concerns about the member of staff. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Lastly, Mr C complained that what he considered to be the false implication above had been broadcast by the council to a number of parties in response to an email from him which he had copied to a distribution list. Given that we had not upheld the second complaint above, and had not found that what the council had said was unreasonable, it followed that we also did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201702982 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of herself and other residents in the apartment complex where she lives. The council had decided that Ms C, and other owners of the property, were liable for emergency and statutory repairs to a drainage system. Over the course of a number of months several emergency and statutory notices were served in relation to this. Ms C complained to the council about the various actions related to the serving of the notices. The council were of the view that they had acted appropriately and had reached decisions reasonably. Ms C remained unhappy and brought her complaints to us. Ms C complained about the process by which the council reached decisions on whether repairs were emergency repairs and which property owners were liable for the costs of the works. We considered the administrative aspects of these matters and concluded that the council had acted reasonably in this regard. We did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained about the administration of the notices and other correspondence to the property owners. We found that there were no significant failings in the council's actions related to this. We did note that there was a delay at one point in the council issuing an emergency repair notice to property owners, that owners had received invoices at one point which the council believed had been cancelled before they had been sent out, and that the council had incorrectly stated that a letter and report were hand delivered to each liable property. However, given the overall context and the volume of correspondence that the council had to deal with regarding these notices, we did not consider that these failings were significant enough to warrant upholding the complaint. As such, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint, but we did make some recommendations.

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A). A council operative was instructed to clear a number of garages and dispose of the contents. The council operative opened Mr A's garage in error, cleared it and disposed of the items within it. Mr A realised that this had happened two days later and contacted the council. Mr A complained and the council admitted the error and advised Mr A to submit a claim for compensation for the disposed of items. This was handled by the council's claims handlers. They offered Mr A less than he had claimed for, as he could not provide proof of exactly what was in the garage. Mr C complained to our office that the council had not taken reasonable precautions to ensure the correct garage was cleared and had not reasonably investigated his complaint. We found the council had not carried out a sufficient investigation into how the mistake had occurred and it was still not clear how it had happened. We also determined that the council's claims handlers had therefore not been provided with sufficient information about the incident. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

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

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application to extend a restaurant near his home. Mr C was concerned that a parking policy had not been taken into account when determining the application and that the planning service had not waited on a consultation response from the roads service at the council before approving the application. During their own consideration of the case, the council accepted that parking had not been covered in the planning officer's report for the application and they apologised for this failing. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence that the relevant policy for parking had been considered when determining the planning application. While there was no statutory requirement to await a roads service consultation response before determining the application, the advice we received highlighted that proceeding without all the relevant information was a key shortcoming. However, there was no evidence that proceeding without the consultation response made any difference to the council's decision to approve the application. On balance, we upheld the complaint. However, based on the advice we received, we did not consider that there was any further action that the council were required to take in respect of the application. We did make a recommendation to ensure that material considerations and relevant policies are taken into account when determining a planning application in the future.

Miss C complained about delays in the council's response to her request for them to fix a leak. She complained that the work was not completed until seven months after her request. Miss C was also unhappy as she felt the level of communication from the council during this time was poor. The council told us that the delay in repairing the leak was caused by difficulties in accessing the property above Miss C's, as this was the source of the leak. However, they acknowledged that the delays in completing the repair were unacceptable. They also recognised that it took a significant amount of time to complete decoration and plastering work after the leak was fixed, although they believed this was down to Miss C not being readily available. The council acknowledged that they did not make attempts to explore alternative arrangements to access the property in Miss C's absence. The council also accepted that Miss C had not received appropriate communications throughout her experience, and they advised that staff training had been planned to address failings in this area. We upheld both of Miss C's complaints. We found that the delays in carrying out the work were unreasonable, and we noted insufficiencies in the council's process. We found that Miss C was given conflicting information from different members of staff, and that she was not regularly updated on what was happening with her repair. As the work had been completed by the time Miss C brought her complaint to us, we did not make further recommendations on this aspect of the complaint. As the council had committed to undertake training to address failings in communication, we did not make further recommendations in this regard, though we did ask the council for evidence that this training had been carried out.

Ms C complained to us about the council's failure to empty her communal food waste bins and their failure to investigate her complaint. Ms C told us that the communal bins were overflowing and that there was no bin liner in the bin. The problem continued to persist for a long time and Ms C tried to raise a formal complaint with the council. The council did not provide Ms C with a final response to her complaint. We found that the council failed to empty the communal food waste bins on numerous occasions over a protracted length of time. We also found that the council failed to thoroughly investigate Ms C's complaint and failed to provide a satisfactory response for their failings. We upheld Ms C's complaints. The council told us that they had been in touch with Ms C regularly to ensure that the service was now satisfactory. We asked for evidence of this and did not make any further recommendations regarding bin pick-ups. However, we did make recommendations regarding the handling of Ms C's complaint.

Mr C applied for, and was granted, planning permission to create a pavement crossing and a parking area within his garden. An additional permit was required for the excavations needed to lower the kerb. The council, having initially given Mr C verbal approval, did not issue a permit for the dropped kerb. Mr C complained to us that he was unreasonably given conflicting information in relation to the dropped kerb application. Mr C said he had already paid a contractor to lay paving slabs to make the parking area, which he was unable to use. Mr C also complained that the council took too long to respond to the complaint. We found that the planning process and the process by which permission can be sought to carry out excavations to a road are governed by entirely separate legislation. The council's roads service failed to submit an objection to Mr C's planning application by the deadline date. Their objection related to the impact that Mr C's plans would have on other residents, in particular that it would reduce the number of available on-street parking places. It was not clear what impact, if any, this objection would have had on the planning committee decision. The relevant roads legislation says the council may give permission to excavate the public road. In this case the council did not do so. We found that there was unreasonable confusion in respect of the permit application. Verbal permission should not have been given until any concerns about it had been properly considered by the council. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that the council failed to issue responses to Mr C's complaints within the timescales set out in their policy. We took into account that the council had already offered sincere apologies for the lengthy delay. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. The council told us they were in the process of carrying out a review of the planning process where a separate permit to carry out excavations in the road or footway a

Mr C complained about a number of issues related to his son (Mr A)'s primary school. Mr A had special adjustments in place which Mr C felt had been disclosed inaccurately to other parents by teaching staff. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which his complaint about the matter was handled by council staff. We found that the council had apologised to Mr C and his family for making inaccurate comments at a public meeting. We considered various possible factors raised by Mr C, but did not find evidence to clearly identify that any specific teacher or council officer had released confidential information about Mr A's special adjustments. However, we considered that certain remarks made to Mr C were not appropriate; that a council officer should not have notified elected members not to respond to Mr C's correspondence; and that the handling of Mr C's complaint regarding this matter was not adequate. We upheld these aspects and recommended that the council apologise to Mr C and share our findings with relevant staff.

Mr C complained about the council’s response to his complaint regarding a planning application in his neighbourhood. Mr C said he could not access a copy of the application to comment on it. He felt the council did not reasonably respond to his complaint about this, and were condescending and dismissive of his concerns. We found that the council carried out a detailed investigation of Mr C’s complaint. Their response dealt with the key issues Mr C raised in his complaint, and it was detailed and factually accurate about the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The response explained what the council did in relation to the application, acknowledged there had been a problem for Mr C accessing the application at the council’s office, and outlined how the failings the council identified would be addressed. We did not find evidence that the council’s response was condescending or dismissive of Mr C's concerns, although we accepted this was Mr C’s perception of the response. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201607073 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures before raising court proceedings to recover rent arrears. She also complained that they failed to follow policies and procedures in relation to recovery of council tax arrears. Miss C has a history of depression, stress and anxiety and has had spells when she has been well enough to work, as well as periods when she has been in receipt of benefits due to ill health. She pointed out that she had always notified the council of any change in her employment. We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures in relation to recovery of rent arrears. It appeared that the council had correctly identified her as vulnerable and had taken steps to ensure that her arrears did not get out of hand, in line with their protocol. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to the council tax arrears, the council had instructed sheriff officers to recover council tax arrears dating back almost 20 years. Miss C accepted that she owed council tax, but she questioned how the council could pursue her for debts dating so far back. The council advised that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had not notified them when her direct deductions (deductions taken from benefit payments in order to repay debts) ceased, and that the debt had remained on hold until the council's debt recovery team recently carried out a review of all historical debts. The council accepted that there had been administrative failings in dealing with her historical debts. We considered that poor communication had led to an opportunity to share information being missed. Had there been better communication between departments, it may have been picked up sooner that she was no longer in receipt of benefits and was therefore not having direct deductions taken by DWP. We found that although the officers involved in collecting Miss C's rent were aware of her depression and appeared to recognise her vulnerabi

Ms C complained about the council's handling of her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). Ms C was in receipt of direct payments for six hours per week of respite care in regards to the care of her daughter. Outside of these hours, Ms C was the sole carer for her daughter. Ms C was advised by her doctor to undergo surgery which would require several weeks of recuperation in hospital. Ms C requested that throughout this period the council increase her direct payments in order for her to pay her mother to look after her daughter during the surgery and recuperation time. The council refused this request, explaining that they did not consider the circumstances merited the payment of a family member. Ms C complained about this and took her complaints to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Ms C complained to us that there was an unreasonable delay in arranging the CRC, that there were inaccuracies in the council's submissions to the CRC, that the CRC unreasonably refused to consider certain evidence and that the minute of the CRC hearing unreasonably failed to mention this. We found that there were unreasonable delays in the council arranging the CRC hearing and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had since offered an apology for these delays, and we therefore made no recommendations. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's complaints about the council's submission to the CRC, the CRC's consideration of evidence or the minute of the CRC hearing. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201604301 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us about the council's involvement in statutory notice works that had been carried out to his property over four years. Mr C had several concerns, including the tendering process for the contractors, the communication with owners about the works, the management of the works, the decision to charge all owners in equal shares, and the billing and debt recovery process. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his complaints and that they had not answered all of his questions regarding an independent review that was carried out of the statutory notice projects. Our investigation found that the council had appropriately and reasonably followed their policies and guidance with regard to the issues about which Mr C complained. However, we found that they had failed to respond in full to the first of Mr C's three formal complaints. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an outstanding statutory notice which had been issued on his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C stated that he had been advised by solicitors acting for the council that responsibility for the debt rested with the previous owner. He also said that his solicitors had been advised that the statutory notice that was the subject of the complaint had been superseded by later statutory notices. The evidence available demonstrated that the council and their solicitors had clearly explained that the legal position was that it is the owner of the property at the date on which the council issues its recovery accounts who is liable to meet the cost of remedial works carried out. We found no evidence that solicitors acting for the council had indicated the debt rested with the previous owner. We also found no evidence that the council had advised that the statutory notice had been superseded by a later statutory notice. Evidence available demonstrated that the work detailed in the statutory notice had started prior to the later statutory notices being issued. In view of the evidence available, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601666 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council's Trading Standards department failed to take action against a motor trader in respect of his complaint. Mr C was unhappy with the condition of a vehicle he purchased and later shipped outside the UK. He was also concerned that the vehicle registration document and a vehicle inspection certificate were not provided. After complaining to the trader, Mr C contacted Trading Standards. Mr C was of the view that Trading Standards were responsible for taking action under the Road Traffic Act 1998 (RTA) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The council explained to Mr C and us that Trading Standards were not empowered to prosecute traders for a breach of Section 75 of the RTA. In addition, the police told Mr C that the RTA only applied to vehicles driven in Britain. The council also explained that Trading Standards could, following the evaluation of relevant, robust and corroborated evidence, make a report suggesting prosecution to the Procurator Fiscal Service (PFS), but that the decision on whether or not to prosecute lay with the PFS and not Trading Standards. In this case, Trading Standards determined that Mr C did not provide them with sufficient evidence upon which to bring or suggest a prosecution, and they explained to Mr C the type of evidence they would need to consider this. Trading Standards advised Mr C that his best recourse was to follow the guidance of Citizens Advice Scotland on a problem with a used car. Mr C did not accept the council's explanations and advice but his disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of a failing by Training Standards. We concluded that the actions of the council were reasonable and proportionate to the issues Mr C brought to Trading Standards and therefore we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603380 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to appropriately explain the charges relating to two statutory notices served in respect of a property of which he was one of the owners. A tender process occurred and the contract administrator advised the owners of the property of the estimated costs. Subsequently, an update from the contract administrator advised owners of increased costs to the project. Owners of the property, including Mr C, raised concerns about this. Following the completion of the works the project was subject to a review by an independent external consultant. This review resulted in a number of reductions to the costs of the work. Mr C complained to the council about the explanations they provided regarding the works. He requested further explanatory material from the council about reconciling costs through the course of the project. The council provided additional information on the expenses for the project, but they also relied on the professional judgement of the independent external consultant who said that the remaining costs were recoverable. Having reviewed the relevant guidance, and the correspondence between Mr C and the council, we noted that there had been some shortcomings in the explanation given during the course of the works. We did acknowledge, however, that the council had subsequently sought a review of the project, applied a reduction to the costs and provided additional explanations. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of five outstanding statutory notices which had been issued in respect of his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify his solicitor of one of the statutory notices when he was considering purchasing the property. The council apologised to Mr C that, due to an error, Mr C's solicitor had not been provided with information on this statutory notice. However, they provided evidence that full information on all the outstanding statutory notices had been provided to the previous owner and their solicitor, including the statutory notice in question. Given that the information had been provided to one of the two parties in the sale of the property, we considered that information on the statutory notice should have been available when Mr C was purchasing the property. The council's position, based on legal advice they had obtained, was that they were entitled to pursue Mr C for the debt outstanding on this statutory notice. While we upheld the complaint, given the action taken by the council to apologise to Mr C we made no further recommendations. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide his solicitor with an accurate estimate of the costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices. Mr C complained that the figure given to his solicitor increased substantially in the final invoice. The council provided evidence of information that had been provided on the estimated costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices, including advice that the final cost was still being calculated. They further explained that a search of their records had provided no documentation detailing the estimate of cost suggested by Mr C. In the absence of evidence that written confirmation was provided by the council that the cost for the works would be as suggested by Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 2

Mr C complained about the council's management of works required to be carried out to his property under the terms of three statutory notices. He further complained that they failed to provide detailed invoices, did not respond to his queries, overcharged him, and failed to deal with his complaints about these matters appropriately. Mr C's complaints were a number of many made over recent years to the council about statutory notice work that had been carried out . In response, the council established a new complaints process to deal specifically with statutory notice complaints. This included a sample review by an external company to provide independent advice. Mr C's complaints went through this process and a number of shortcomings were found. Because of this, his invoices were greatly reduced and administration costs and VAT were waived. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to SPSO. We found that the council had failed to manage the contracts appropriately and had previously charged him for work that had not been carried out. However, they had since taken action to address these matters and had reissued correct invoices. We found no evidence that Mr C's complaint was handled unreasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201604646 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C made a complaint about the manner in which his deceased brother's property was cleared from his home. Mr C was unhappy that an environmental clean had been conducted, meaning that many items were removed from his brother's property and not itemised in an inventory. He was unhappy about poor communication from staff and that the contractor conducting the environmental clean had left unsealed bins outside the property with his brother's belongings inside. Though the council were the deceased's landlord, the company who were property managing the tenancy on the council's behalf responded to the complaint. They advised that their policy is that when an environmental risk is identified, a contractor is required to conduct a full environmental clean of the property, removing all items which are contaminated or present a risk. They apologised for the breakdown in communication and interviewed staff about alleged conversations with Mr C. They also apologised for the bins being left on the street and explained that the contractor had worked extra hours in an attempt to clear the property ahead of the family's visit to the property, and the bins were left outside as there was no more room on the van. This was deemed to be a failing of the contractor and an apology was made in response to Mr C's complaint to them. We found that procedures had been followed regarding the environmental clean and it was not unreasonable that items which were contaminated or posed a risk were not recorded on an inventory. In this case, it was also recommended an environmental clean should take place as the deceased was diabetic, so there was a needle risk in the property. As the communication between staff and Mr C arose during verbal conversations, we had no way of determining what was actually said. We found that it was a failing of the contractor to leave bins containing hazardous material on the street. However, we concluded that this was a situational error which had occurred du

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.

Mrs C complained to us about the allocation of costs regarding two statutory notices served on her property. Mrs C said that the allocation of costs between the two notices was arbitrary and that the costs should be reduced. Before Mrs C complained to us, the council had instructed a consultant to carry out an investigation of complaints regarding statutory notices, which included complaints about the allocation of costs. This investigation recommended that the costs of one of the statutory notices should be reduced to zero as the notice had been incorrectly served. Mrs C agreed with this, but said that some of the costs of the statutory notice that was not reduced to zero should have been apportioned to the other notice. We found that the investigation carried out by the independent consultant had reasonably considered the complaints about the allocation of costs between statutory notices. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507451 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way the council administered statutory notice works to a property he owned. The notice served by the council required work to be carried out to remedy various issues involving the roof and masonry. As these works were not carried out by residents, the council sent a further notice advising that they would arrange for the works to be carried out and informing residents of their right to appeal this decision. Following this, the council proceeded to appoint a contractor through competitive open tender. Once works commenced, further defects were identified and additional notices were served on residents in respect of these. Consequently, the cost of the project increased significantly compared to what was initially estimated. Mr C complained that the council had failed to keep appropriate records of the tendering process and had failed to follow the correct tendering process for the works. We found evidence that the council held copies of four completed tender documents; a copy of a completed tender report, which detailed the basis for the council accepting the tender from one of the contractors; and a signed copy of the contractor's endorsement of the tender. We noted that the project had been tendered competitively and that the cheapest tender had been chosen by the council. We did not find evidence that the tendering process used by the council was inappropriate, or that the council did not hold appropriate records in relation to this. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Mr C also raised concern that the council was unable to produce a formal final account and a full breakdown of the costs. Mr C also felt that some of the costs had not been appropriately verified as reasonable. We were critical that the council failed to ensure that they obtained a signed and itemised final account, and we noted that this was a requirement of the council's procedures. In light of this, we upheld this complaint. However, we found tha

Miss C complained on behalf of her local residents' organisation. Her complaint concerned various issues relating to the council's waste services, including the bin crew failing to empty bins on designated days, not cleaning or picking up overspill in bin stores, not reporting tipped items to relevant services, long delays in response times for faulty bin repairs, and the bin crew not returning bins to stores after emptying them. The council acknowledged that there had been failings in their refuse collection services, and provided evidence to show that they were taking steps to improve matters. They have also appointed a Locality Waste and Cleansing Officer. There had also been unreasonable delays in the council responding to requests for bin repair or replacement, and unreasonable delays in responding to Miss C's complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Miss C complained about the council's response to her concerns about statutory notices issued at her property. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to follow the relevant procedures. During our investigation we found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the correct procedures. We were satisfied that owners had been notified of the statutory notices and subsequently that, as owners had failed to carry out the required work, the council had authorised the organisation of the work. We were satisfied that evidence available demonstrated that owners had been kept updated on progress of the works. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. Miss C also complained that the council had failed to handle her complaint reasonably. While we were satisfied that the council had responded to Miss C's representations, the council accepted that they had failed to deal with her complaint within the timescales detailed in their complaints process. We therefore upheld this complaint.