SPSO Individual Decisions

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.

Mr C complained that the council's social work department did not investigate his complaint, as he submitted it after their deadline. We found that Mr C did submit his complaint after the council's deadline, and that the council had followed their procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201602406 as a PDF (10.68 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council did not acknowledge his contact when he repeatedly reported problems with street cleanliness and the condition of on-street bins. We found evidence that the council acted reasonably in response to some, but not all, of the issues raised. The council acknowledged they failed to consistently provide the level of customer service Mr C was entitled to under their service standards. We also found Mr C was not given good information about the council's complaints process and that his many communications to the council were not always handled in an effective way. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint. We noted that the council had offered to meet with Mr C on more than one occasion to get a better understanding of his complaint and that Mr C did not take up this offer. In doing so he missed an opportunity to have his outstanding concerns resolved.

Miss C complained that the council had failed to properly handle numerous complaints about noise from her downstairs neighbour that she had been experiencing for two years. We found that the council's initial response to Miss C's noise complaints was appropriate and in line with their Antisocial Behaviour Policy. However, aside from a period of time when the council were trying to work with the neighbour to reach a long-term resolution, we were concerned that the council had allowed the behaviour to continue for so long without further action being considered or taken under the Antisocial Behaviour Policy. We also had concerns that an internal review had concluded that the behaviour had improved, even though Miss C continued to report noise complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Ms C, a council tenant, complained about the time it took the council to deal with a problem she was having with pigeons on her balcony. Although we found the council's communication could have been better, we were satisfied that the works, which had been assessed as non-emergency, were carried out within a reasonable timescale. We therefore did no uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also told us there was a delay in progressing a claim she made for compensation. This delay had already been acknowledged by the council. Ms C also said that the council did not respond reasonably to points of complaint she raised by email. We found that there were shortcomings in the council's response and that some issues were not addressed either at all or as fully as possible. We therefore upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to address within a reasonable timescale her concerns about anti-social behaviour. Mrs C also felt that the council had not responded adequately to her complaints. The council stated that they felt they had responded reasonably and in line with their procedures both in terms of the anti-social behaviour complaints and in terms of their complaints handling. Our view was that the council had been at fault in not appropriately acting upon Mrs C's initial anti-social behaviour complaint. We also found that the council had not recognised an email from Mrs C as a complaint or dealt with it in accordance with their procedures. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Mr C complained to us about a statutory notice on his property. He complained that the council had failed to act on his assertion that his property had been damaged by the contractors carrying out the statutory notice work and that a breakdown of costs had not been provided to him either during the works or after completion. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to notify him properly of the statutory notice, and failed to manage the projects in line with their obligations. During our investigations we examined the information provided by the council and Mr C. We found that Mr C had not raised the issue of his property being damaged until several years after the works had been completed and therefore the council had no obligation to act. We found that the council had provided Mr C with a breakdown of estimated costs during the works being carried out, and a breakdown of final costs when they were completed. We also found that Mr C had been notified of the statutory notices in line with council policy, and that the projects were managed in line with all council obligations. Therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201508064 as a PDF (11.03 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to reasonably administer three statutory notices (where the council arrange for work to be done and then recoup the cost from the property owners) that had been served on his and neighbouring properties. The evidence we received from the council in relation to the complaint was limited. There was no clear evidence in relation to the appointment of the contractor for the work. Although the estimated costs during the project rose to bring it within the remit of the council's major framework process, it continued on the minor framework. The council were unable to provide an explanation for this but assured us that Mr C was not financially disadvantaged. In addition, there was no clear evidence that Mr C was given an estimate of the cost of the project before work commenced or that update letters were issued whilst the work was being completed. Whilst the council told us that they could not accept that they failed to reasonably administer the three statutory notices as they complied with the legislative requirements, we found that their handling of the matter had not been satisfactory. They had previously agreed to reduce the total bill for the statutory notices by over £17,000 for scaffolding hire, which was likely to have been incurred due to their poor management of the works. In their response to our enquiries, the council also acknowledged that owners were not kept informed of the anticipated increases in costs during the project. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained about the way the council investigated a complaint about the conduct and attitude of an officer at an appeal hearing. Ms C said the officer unreasonably and unfairly undermined her case and was rude and antagonising. We found the council had appointed a suitable investigating officer and had given attendees, including independent people, the opportunity to contribute their evidence. Ms C was unhappy that the council had not spoken to her or a friend who accompanied her to the hearing. We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision for the council, and that the details of her dissatisfaction were already on record. We were satisfied the council were entitled to give particular weight to the evidence of independent people. We found the complaint had been investigated to the standard and extent we would expect. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201602508 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council regarding a statutory notice served for roof works affecting a property owned by him. He complained that he had not received a notice served notifying owners that the works would be executed. He also complained that the council had failed to provide a 20-year guarantee on materials and labour for works to a flat roof on the building which had been agreed before works commenced. On investigation, the council provided copies of all notices served in connection with the works and we found no evidence that the council had failed to properly serve any notice. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. However, it was clear from their correspondence with owners that a guarantee was agreed but never provided. We found that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to secure the guarantee from the contractor on completion of works. As such, we upheld this complaint. Following our enquiry the council were able to secure the guarantee from the contractor and provided copies of this to all affected owners.

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a planning application to develop residential accommodation at a site next to the home of her daughter (Miss A). Mrs C complained that the council had not taken appropriate action when she highlighted issues with the accuracy of the applicant's submission. She also complained that the council had not allowed sufficient time before a committee meeting for her to submit additional information about the impact of the new development on daylight at Miss A's home. We took independent planning advice. We found that when Mrs C raised concerns about the accuracy of the application, the council did not acknowledge or act on these quickly. The council had recognised this during their own consideration of the complaint and taken remedial action. The advice we received highlighted a failure to re-notify neighbours when the applicant submitted further information to the council. Had the council taken this action, it would have allowed Mrs C further time to submit information relating to the daylight impact of the development. We also found the council had told Mrs C that a short turnaround time had been given due to concerns about the applicant appealing against non-determination of the planning application (the planning applicant has a right to appeal the non-determination of their application if the council has not reached a decision to grant or refuse planning consent within a specific statutory timescale). The advice we received was that the timescale for an appeal had already passed and consequently this was not a relevant factor in the case. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably invoiced him for the cost of work associated with two emergency statutory notices carried out four years previously. These had been issued to make safe masonry on a building where Mr C owns a flat. Mr C was concerned that the council could only provide evidence of the amount they paid the contractor for the work, rather than an itemised bill. He was also concerned about the length of time it took the council to invoice him for the share of the costs. The council said that invoices from the contractor could not be retrieved as the company was no longer trading. They said that the invoices were submitted by the contractor electronically through the council's internal payment system, therefore there was no paper copy on record other than printouts confirming the payments the council had made to the contractor. The council said that there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory, and so they felt the invoices were accurate and recoverable from the owners. We were critical that the council was unable to provide records to show that the site had been inspected to verify completion of the work before payment was authorised to the contractor. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory. We were satisfied that the council had implemented guidance on the emergency statutory notice process. We also found that the council had delayed issuing the invoices due to an investigation into their former property conservation section and that the council was entitled to pursue the outstanding costs after four years. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.

Ms C complained about how the council handled her concerns about a breach of planning control by her neighbours who had built a balcony. She complained that it did not meet the minimum distance requirements for privacy. Ms C also pointed out that while the council said they followed guidance, the guidance did not refer to balconies. She questioned therefore how the council could say they followed guidance. In addition, Ms C pointed out that the council elected to use window to window minimum distance measurements for assessing privacy, but she noted that the council themselves pointed out that the minimum distances were not met. We requested all of the relevant information from the council and also sought independent planning advice. We noted that, prior to our involvement in this case, the council had acknowledged their failings and had taken action to remedy them. In particular, the council recognised that their Guidance to Householders was insufficient with regard to balconies and privacy and accepted that it should be reviewed. The adviser confirmed that the use of enforcement powers is a discretionary matter for the council. The adviser also concluded that the council had addressed the concerns Ms C raised and that their officers applied the most appropriate guidance available to them at the time. We accepted this view and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201600536 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of statutory notices issued in relation to his property. Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the notification process in relation to the issue of the statutory notices or that they had failed to follow procedures in relation to the decision to administer the works on behalf of owners. While we were concerned that the council's project file was incomplete in relation to the repairs carried out, the project had been reviewed by an independent adviser appointed by the council, who was satisfied that the works carried out were within the scope of the statutory notices and the final bill issued to owners was correct. We were also aware that action had been taken by the council to improve record-keeping in relation to project files for works undertaken to comply with statutory notices. Related reading View Decision Report 201508159 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to fully reflect his concerns about a neighbouring planning application when they made a report to committee, in particular with regard to noise and loss of sunlight. The council acknowledged that they had failed to fully reflect Mr C's concerns. They advised Mr C that the measurement of sunlight loss used for the application was appropriate but accepted that they should have communicated more clearly in their report about the loss of daylight. They also acknowledged that they did not properly reflect Mr C's concerns about the potential impact of noise. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser found that while the council had failed to fully reflect the representations made by Mr C, these would have been available in full to committee members. They also found that the daylight test was in line with the council's guidance. As the council did not fully reflect Mr C's concerns about possible noise, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained to us regarding a planning application at a neighbouring site. In particular, she was concerned that the council had failed to re-notify neighbours following the submission of further information from the applicant. Mrs C also complained that the development management sub-committee had not been provided with a reasonable standard of information about ground levels. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. They noted that when responding to Mrs C's complaints, the council had accepted that neighbours should have been notified of the additional information submitted and been given the opportunity to make further representations. The council also accepted that members of the development management sub-committee should have been made aware of the proposed site levels. We were advised that while reasonable action had been taken by the council to address these findings, further action should be taken by the council. We therefore made five recommendations.

Following a call from Mr C, the council sent a plumber to unblock a drain at his home. Mr C's own plumber had advised that the blockage was in the communal area of pipework and so when the council's plumber unblocked the drain, all residents in the block were invoiced. Mr C paid his share of this invoice. However, the council were then informed by another resident that he had not been affected by the blockage. As a result they contacted their plumber who confirmed that the blockage was in Mr C's pipework and not in a communal area. As a result they withdrew the invoices from other residents and invoiced Mr C for the full costs. They also apologised for not doing so earlier. Mr C complained that he was never told that he would be liable for the costs should the works not be communal and also that he was not told that he would be charged costs at the out-of-hours rate. The council explained that it was their standard procedure to highlight costs and responsibilities to customers requesting that they attend to emergency repairs. They explained that information about their services and the costs are also available on their website. The evidence suggested that Mr C's plumber had said that the block was likely to be in the communal pipework, so Mr C should call in the evening and request that a plumber attend. We obtained copies of the council's procedures and phone scripts. Although we were unable to say what was said in the phone calls, we were satisfied that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's request for a service and were justified in invoicing Mr C alone, given that the council's plumber located the blockage in the pipework in Mr C's property. As the evidence suggested that the council dealt with the call out appropriately, and as we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to establish that the council did not inform Mr C of costs and the process during his phone calls to them, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision

Ms C, a council tenant, complained that the council did not take reasonable steps to address water ingress in her home. She said despite numerous visits and investigations by the council's staff, they had not been able to identify the source of the water ingress and they had failed to carry out specific agreed work to identify the source of the problem. We were satisfied that the council accepted that water ingress was a problem in Ms C's home. The evidence showed that their staff and contractors attended Ms C's home on numerous occasions, conducted a variety of tests and carried out repair work in good faith. When this work proved to be unsuccessful, they sought the opinion of independent specialists and acted upon their recommendations. The overall picture was of the council attempting to identify the cause of the water ingress and when one cause was ruled out, or a remedy did not work, they conducted further investigations and sought to identify other potential causes. We did not find this approach unreasonable. The council had a clear obligation to ensure that Ms C was housed in a property that was wind and watertight. If they were unable to ensure that Ms C's current property met the required standard, they were obliged to arrange for temporary accommodation while the required work was completed and the basic standard restored. We accepted that the council did offer to provide Ms C with temporary accommodation, but that she chose to remain in her home. We were, therefore, satisfied that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the water ingress problems in Ms C's home and offered Ms C temporary accommodation in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement. Related reading View Decision Report 201508651 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had previously complained to us that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who had acted for a member of his family before their death (see complaint 201300636). We upheld this complaint and recommended that council take steps to ensure that the issues he had raised were investigated appropriately. The council carried out a further investigation, but Mr C was unhappy with this and made a further complaint to the council. He referred this complaint to us after receiving the council's response. We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a social work adviser. We found that although there were some minor failings in the council's investigation, overall, the investigation was proportionate and was carried out in line with the relevant code of practice. We said that we would bring the minor failings to the board's attention, but we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to hold a complaints review committee (CRC) in relation to the complaint. Although the council had initially told Mr C that they would make arrangements to comply with his request, they then told him that a CRC could not be held, as the issue he was complaining about was not one that could be dealt with by a CRC. We were critical that the council's initial letter raised Mr C's expectations that a CRC would be held. We were also critical of the council's delay in responding to his request for a CRC. However, we found that it had been reasonable for the council not to hold a CRC and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508794 as a PDF (11.45 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's property was subject to a statutory notice. When the bill for works was provided, a number of years after the notice was issued and the work undertaken, it was significantly above the estimate. Mr C requested the council provide justifications and itemised bills reflecting the reasons for the cost increases. During correspondence on this matter the council offered to deduct an administration charge, stating that the works were subject to lengthy timescales and poor customer service. Mr C sought clarification of a number of points before accepting the overall offer that this was part of. The council decided that the costs were justified but did not provide the requested justification or itemised bills and withdrew their offer to deduct the administration charge. Mr C complained about the lack of explanation as to the costs for the work and the decision to withdraw the offer to waive the administration fee. We found that the cost of the project escalated substantially due to a number of emergency notices being served during the works. Whilst many of these costs were deducted from the final account, the overall cost was still significantly higher than the original estimate. We were critical of the council for failing to provide a breakdown of these costs as required by their own guidance. We also concluded that it was inappropriate of the council to withdraw their previous offer to waive the administration fee.

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to keep accurate information about his council tax account. During our investigation, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him about an offer the council had made to try to resolve the complaint. We had no option but to close our file on his case. Related reading View Decision Report 201502424 as a PDF (10.7 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had complained to the council about a statutory notice on his property. His complaint was reviewed by consultants acting on behalf of the council. He complained to us that the investigation process, as instructed by the council and carried out by the consultant, was not independent, thorough or fair. Mr C also complained to us that the council had not appropriately explained and documented the amount he was charged. We found that the project that was subject to the statutory notice had been fully reviewed by the consultant and a sizeable adjustment had been made to the final bill. The council had not therefore acted unreasonably. Further, we found that the charges had been appropriately explained and documented and we were satisfied that Mr C received all of the information the council had provided to other owners in a similar position. In the absence of evidence that this was not the case or that the council had not followed usual practice in explaining and documenting their charges to Mr C, we did not have grounds to determine that the council acted unreasonably, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404640 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C raised a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a statutory notice issued for repairs to her property. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to inform her that the cost of the repairs had increased from the initial estimate. She also complained that the council had allowed the cost of these works to increase unreasonably; that they had unreasonably carried out works not detailed in the statutory notice; and that they had delayed in issuing the final invoice for the works carried out. We were concerned that the council were unable to provide documentary evidence that the owners were kept advised of any cost increase in relation to the works, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation. However, during our investigation we found no evidence that the council allowed the costs of the works to increase unreasonably. We found that they had explained that the initial estimate had been prepared following a non-intrusive ground survey and the cost increase had been caused by a more accurate assessment and measurement of the scale of the required repairs. We also found no evidence that the council had carried out works that were not subject to the statutory notice which had been issued. While we were concerned that the council had delayed in issuing the final invoice we found no evidence that the final account had increased as a result of this delay. We were also mindful that the delay had been accepted by the council and they had apologised to Mrs C for this.

Mrs C complained about the way the council administered a statutory notice served on her and her husband (Mr C)'s property. In particular, she was concerned about the tendering process followed by the council, by their failure to seek listed building consent for the works, and their failure to apply for a grant for the works. Additionally, Mrs C was concerned that they had failed to take into account her husband's comments about the need for the works at the time of the initial inspection. Finally, she was concerned about the time it took for the council to issue the final invoice. We found that the council did follow the required process when appointing contractors to carry out the work. We noted that listed building consent would not be required for these works and that the council had, indeed, applied for grants to contribute to the costs of the work. The grant application was refused by the funder. We had no documented records of Mr C's comments on the works required but, notwithstanding this, any dissatisfaction with the level of works included in the notice is a matter which should be appealed to the sheriff. A significant level of works were, however, carried out to the property which were not included in the statutory notice. As part of a review of the statutory notice process, this significant additional work was noted and was deducted from the final invoice. As this review took a considerable amount of time, there was a very significant delay in issuing the final invoice. As a result of the mistakes in the invoicing, the inclusion of works not contained in the statutory notice and the significant delay in issuing the invoice, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations to the council as they arranged for this matter to be independently reviewed and suitable remedial action was taken. Related reading View Decision Report 201502359 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C and Mr C complained about how the council had processed their council tax and how they had communicated with them about their liability and payments. Miss C and Mr C also complained about how the council responded to their complaint. Miss C and Mr C missed two council tax payments and on each occasion the council sent them reminder notices. They missed a third payment, and the council passed the debt to a debt management partner (DMP) for collection. We found that the council had explained the amounts Miss C and Mr C would owe and had set out a payment schedule of when to pay. We also noted the council had appropriately processed the payments they had made. We therefore did not uphold these complaints. However, we found the council had not used accurate figures in the response to Miss and Mr C's complaint. They also failed to explain that the outstanding amount was from a charge levied by the DMP, over and above the council tax owed. Both of these things had caused confusion and we upheld this complaint. Furthermore, we noted the council had not provided copies of information held by their DMP, as we would expect, and we made a recommendation to address this.