SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that his aunt's hot water and heating system was properly maintained. He was also concerned that the council failed to deal with his subsequent complaints in a reasonable or timely manner. Our investigation found that Mr C's aunt had had problems with the hot water and heating system for many years. However, in each case where faults were reported to the council, they had arranged for engineers to visit to attend to them. In addition, the council offered to provide a replacement hot water and heating system in January 2012, but council officers had been unable to gain access to allow this to go ahead. Following our contact with the council they offered again to install a new heating system but Mr C's aunt advised that she did not want this as it would be too disruptive. As we did not find evidence to show that the council failed in their responsibilities to maintain the hot water and heating system we did not uphold this element of the complaint. We did, however, find that the council took longer than their stated timescale to respond to Mr C's complaint and also failed to consider earlier correspondence as formal complaints.

Mrs C bought her council house and is one of only two owner-occupiers in a block of eight flats. She said that the council carried out work to her house without permission, failed to detail the work that would be carried out, failed to discuss the proposed works with her and how she would finance these, and failed to give her the opportunity to obtain quotes for the works. The council, in responding to their tenants' reports of water leaks and dampness, had surveyed three blocks that they owned. The survey recommended substantial upgrading works to the rendering and roof. The council considered that as majority proprietor, under the terms of the title deeds they did not need the agreement of the owner-occupiers to instruct the works. Our investigation found that the title deeds granted the council those powers, and that the nature of the work was disclosed shortly before it started. The council put the works out to tender with an estimated cost to each owner of more than £9,000. The maintenance of the building was a joint responsibility. After accounts were issued, the council offered a deferred repayment scheme over two years and recommended that Mrs C seek independent financial advice. Although Mrs C was unhappy at being faced with such a large bill shortly after becoming an owner, we did not uphold any of her complaints. We noted that the council, in the light of her complaint, had taken steps to improve communication with owners. Related reading View Decision Report 201104450 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his neighbour's planning application for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a large fence. In particular, Mr C said that the council had used incorrect criteria when assessing the application and had failed to undertake a road safety audit. He was also unhappy about the council's handling of his correspondence. Our investigation found no evidence of procedural fault in the way in which they processed the application. We were satisfied that the council used current guidelines in assessing the application and in deciding that in this case a road safety audit was not required. We did find fault in the way in which the council handled Mr C's representations, but noted that they had apologised to him for this before our involvement, and we made no recommendation. Related reading View Decision Report 201101570 as a PDF (16.45 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C was dissatisfied with the council's handling of her and her partner's housing complaints. We upheld her complaint. We found that that the council had not responded reasonably to the complaints and that they did not provide responses or updates in line with their complaints procedure. We found that they unreasonably considered the complaints twice at the first two stages of the complaints procedure, and repeated incorrect statements about Miss C after they had apologised for this. We made recommendations for improvement.

Mr C has rented his council house for 11 years. His neighbour bought her council house before he became a tenant. As part of this purchase, she bought the driveway on the gable end of the building, but the council retained a right of access for the tenant of Mr C’s house. There was no footpath laid when Mr C became a tenant but he was able to gain access for deliveries and to bring his wheelie bins round from his back garden. Mr C said that his neighbour told him that it was her intention to lay a path at some time. Mr C and his neighbour fell out with each other about two years ago on an unrelated issue. As a result, Mr C complained to the council that his neighbour was making it difficult for him to gain access to and bring his wheelie bins round from the back of his house. Mr C complained to us because the council refused to agree to his request that they require his neighbour to provide a path. He believed that they were obliged to do so under the terms of his tenancy agreement. As there had never been a path and Mr C did not raise the matter before he accepted the tenancy from the council, we told Mr C that we could investigate but we could not achieve the outcome he was seeking. Mr C then decided not to pursue his complaint with us further. Related reading View Decision Report 201102366 as a PDF (16.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's father was the tenant of a council property for many years until his death in 2011. In 2007, with the support of his family, Mrs C's father had applied to buy his house. The council considered the application under the relevant legislation in place at the time (The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987). They refused it, on the grounds that the house had been adapted to accommodate a disabled person. Following her father's death, however, Mrs C said that the council let the house to an able bodied person and that the adaptations were removed. She complained to the council about this but remained dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us. Our investigation found that, although the council had let the house to a person without a disability, this was only after procedures had been followed to try to accommodate a person specifically in need of the facilities provided. Only movable adaptations had been removed, and the council intend to keep the house (and the permanent adaptations that were made to it) within their housing stock. We were satisfied that the council appropriately refused to sell the house to Mrs C's late father, and that they had considered and applied appropriate legislation and policies in making their decisions. We did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201104084 as a PDF (16.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a development on land close to his home had been carried out without planning permission and that the council failed to take any action to resolve matter. Mr C also said that he and his neighbours had regularly complained about noise, smells and unauthorised dumping, and that trees had been cut down at the site without planning permission. Mr C said that this was to the detriment of an area which was considered to be of great landscape value. He also felt that that the council failed to take his complaints seriously and try to sort things out. Our investigation found that unauthorised work had been carried out but that the council had taken action to resolve the issue by requiring a retrospective planning application. While Mr C was not content with the steps taken by the council, we found their approach was appropriate in the circumstances. The investigation also found that the council had investigated the noise complaints and pursued them with the tenant of the property concerned, and that they found no evidence of a noise issue. Related reading View Decision Report 201004187 as a PDF (13.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council did not take her concerns appropriately into account when planning Core Paths (a system of public access paths) in the area she lives and that she was not given appropriate information about the process. She appealed to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and was concerned about the impartiality of the DPEA’s conclusions in relation to her objections. Mrs C complained that there were long delays in the council responding to her letters during the complaints procedure. Having looked at the evidence provided by the council, we concluded that Mrs C's concerns had been appropriately taken into consideration, and that she had been given advice and relevant information throughout every stage of the Core Paths planning process. In addition, we considered that there was insufficient evidence to support that the council had delayed in responding to Mrs C complaint and did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201100032 as a PDF (13.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the council in May 2010 about their failure to clear snow from his road for a period of about four weeks from late December 2009. His complaint culminated in a letter from the chief executive in August 2010 which said that the council were in the process of reviewing their winter maintenance plans to enable them to treat more roads at an earlier stage. In December 2010 Mr C sent an email to the chief executive to say that snow had fallen on his road for six consecutive days but no effort had been made to clear it. Mr C's letter was passed to the Roads Department who told Mr C they were working through the roads on a prioritised basis and would get to all areas as soon as possible when weather and resources permitted. They provided details of where he could get further information. Mr C complained to us that snow clearing in his road did not appear to have improved from the previous year. He also complained about how the council dealt with his email to the chief executive. As part of our investigation, the council provided us with a copy of their new Winter Service Plan which indicated the priority of roads in Mr C's area in accordance with best practice guidance. Mr C's email had been passed to the Roads Department for them to advise him of the position. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints as we found that the council had acted appropriately in this case. Related reading View Decision Report 201100488 as a PDF (14.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018