SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond fully to his complaint about the standard of service they provided when he applied to them for a letter of comfort (a document provided to satisfy a buyer that the local authority will not take action to have work remedied) for a property he owned. He said that the house sale did not complete on time because of the council's delay, and that he was dissatisfied because the council had maintained that they had dealt with the matter competently. He considered that their actions showed that they had no commitment to customer experience. Our investigation found that the council had looked into the matter by reviewing the contact between Mr C and their officers, and the level of service provided. They told us that there were no specific timescales for inspections and responses to letters of comfort, but that there was guidance in the application form that Mr C had completed. This indicated that they aimed to complete a request within two weeks of receipt of an application, although the service provided was usually quicker than this. The evidence showed that they had responded to Mr C in eight working days (ie within two weeks). They accepted that they had not acknowledged all of Mr C's emails, and although they said that they had phoned him, we were unable to verify this because of a lack of records of calls made. They also said that the reply was delayed as it had to be signed off, but we found no evidence that this was not done on the day the visit to the property took place. As the time taken from the request being made to the letter being provided was within the timescale provided to the public about the service, we did not uphold the complaint. We did, however, recommend to the council that they take steps to review their record-keeping.

Mrs C lives in an upper flat in a block of four council flats. Shortly before Christmas she reported water coming into her home from a leaking roof. The council responded after the new year, and provided plastic sheeting in the loft space. Nothing was then done to the roof until July when a scaffold was erected for one day (Mrs C disputes that any work was done on her side at that time). After she contacted the council again, a repair order was issued at the start of August, and roof works including the taking down of a chimney and other repairs were completed by late October. The scaffolding remained up for another six weeks and Mrs C says that at the time of its removal the roof leaks had not been completely attended to. She complained to us that the roof repairs were not carried out within a reasonable time. Our investigation found that the council's communication was inadequate, as they should have told Mrs C what they intended to do and when. We found it difficult to see from their records exactly what they did plan to do to the roof, and why, but the evidence we saw suggested that repairs were not carried out in a reasonable timescale. We upheld Mrs C's complaint and made two recommendations.

Mr C complained that, following a storm, a neighbour's tree fell across the garden ground of a number of residents. One of the residents was a council tenant and, as a result, the council offered to arrange for contractors to remove the tree and large tree stump. However, a number of residents refused to contribute towards the costs of removal, so the council arranged for the tree to be cut into sections and for the sections which lay in their tenant's garden to be removed. While the tree was being cut up, its root ball fell back into the hole that was made when the tree fell, with the roots protruding into Mr C's garden. Mr C was unhappy that the council allowed this to happen, and felt that the root should have remained where it was. Our investigation found that this was, essentially, a private legal matter between residents, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had acted appropriately in attempting to co-ordinate the removal of the tree and its stump and, when some residents refused to contribute, appropriately arranged to remove the parts relating to their own tenant's property. Related reading View Decision Report 201203175 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a former council tenant of a downstairs 'four in a block' flat. A tree in his front garden had grown to eaves (roof) level and his upstairs neighbour (an owner-occupier) complained to the council that this meant she was being denied both light and a view. The council offered to prune the tree but Mr C said he would prune it. That did not happen and, according to Mr C, workers arrived in March 2011 saying that they had a works order to remove the tree at Mr C's request. When he said that he had not requested the tree's removal, they left, contacted the police and requested their attendance. Mr C prevented the removal of the tree that day, and next day applied to buy his home. A year later, he instructed a contractor to trim the tree but the upstairs neighbour was not fully satisfied. Mr C made four complaints against the council. We upheld his complaints that the council raised contradictory and inaccurate works orders in respect of the tree and that workers arrived unannounced to carry out the works. We found that the council had not acted properly in these respects. We did not, however, make any recommendations as the council had already apologised and amended their procedures in response to the complaint. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints that an inaccurate report was made to the police to secure their attendance and that the council failed to deal appropriately with his complaint, as we found no evidence to suggest that the council acted inappropriately on either matter. Related reading View Decision Report 201102594 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

An MSP complained to us on behalf of two constituents who said that works carried out by the council to a neighbouring flat, which required the temporary disconnection of the mains water supply, damaged the valves controlling the water pressure in their homes. The council told us that the water supply was turned off as an emergency and no advance notice could be given. It was clear that the council had investigated the complaints and found no evidence that the drop in water pressure was as a result of anything they had done. We did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence of fault in the way the council handled the matter. Related reading View Decision Report 201003787 as a PDF (13.57 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018