SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the council after they forcibly entered his property whilst attempting to stop a leak reported by his downstairs neighbour. After the council turned off the water to Mr C's property, his neighbour reported that the leak had slowed and then stopped. This led the council to advise that Mr C should seek the services of a plumber to inspect his property for the source of the leak. He did this but the plumber was unable to locate any leak and concluded that the council's assessment that the leak originated in his property was incorrect. As a result of this, the council agreed to waive their recovery of the costs of entering his property but Mr C was unhappy that they refused to pay the insurance excess he had to pay as a result of what he considered to be unnecessary inspection work. On investigation, we considered that, based on the information available to the council at the time, their assessment that the leak originated in his property had been reasonable. They had followed their procedures in entering Mr C's property and turning off the water, and we found their agreement to waive their recovery of costs to be good practice in the circumstances. We did not deem it to be reasonable to expect them to pay Mr C's insurance excess, as we considered he had a responsibility to ensure that his property was not the source of the leak. Related reading View Decision Report 201503790 as a PDF (11.25 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.

Ms C owned a property, behind which were three garages. Planning consent was granted for one of the garages to be converted into an office. Due to its close proximity to Ms C's property, a condition was included in the consent requiring the developer to replace the garage's window with glass blocks, to maintain Ms C's privacy. However, the developer installed a plain window which, whilst opaque, could be opened. Ms C was disappointed to find that the council declined to take enforcement action to ensure that the required blocks were installed. She complained that the council failed to respond to her correspondence on the matter and failed to review their decision not to enforce the condition. We found that the council had concluded that the original condition was worded in such a way that it was unenforceable. We accepted independent planning advice that this was not the case and that the council could have done more to ensure that Ms C's privacy was protected in line with the planning consent. We were also critical of their handling of her complaints and their failure to respond to relevant information she presented to them.

Mr C owned a property in Edinburgh. Between 2008 and 2010, four statutory notices were issued by the council requiring work to be carried out on the property. The council were asked to take over management of the works. Although the work was completed in February 2012, the council did not issue Mr C with an invoice until March 2014. He considered there to have been an unreasonable delay to the invoice. He also complained that the project had been managed poorly with unnecessary delays. He noted that the responsible department within the council was placed under investigation and considered that this was evidence of poor management practices. In the circumstances, he did not feel it was appropriate for the council to charge their normal 15 percent administration fee. We found that the invoice was delayed while an independent investigation was carried out into the property conservation service's handling of all statutory notice projects. We considered it reasonable for the council to await the outcome of the investigation rather than issuing an invoice that may later turn out to be inaccurate. We considered that the independent investigation appropriately sought to check the management of each project on its own merits. Whilst there were widely publicised cases of poor management of statutory notice works, this did not affect Mr C's case and we, therefore, had no grounds to recommend that the council's fees were waived. Related reading View Decision Report 201500117 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh. In 2007 the council issued a statutory notice requiring repairs to a rooftop drying green shared by several properties. The property owners did not appoint a contractor of their own and the council took over responsibility for the works. The owners were provided with an initial estimate of the cost of the works. However, once the work had started, this escalated substantially. Ms C raised a number of concerns about the lack of information as to why the price had changed so much, the council's failure to explain their minimum charges and additional work carried out at extra cost without consultation with the owners. We were critical of the council's handling of the sizeable cost increase. Whilst there was no suggestion that the work was unnecessary, we found that they could have provided a more realistic estimate at the beginning of the process to better manage the owners' expectations. We were not concerned by their communication of the minimum charges and were generally satisfied that the additional works were added to the project reasonably. However, we commented on the way that these works were communicated to the owners.

Miss C complained that the council failed until 2014 to notify her of works to her home carried out under a statutory notice served in 2007. She said it was only in 2014 that she was informed of the amount of money that she owed. She also complained that the council failed to follow the correct tendering process when carrying out the works. We found that the original statutory notices were issued to her agent at the time and it would, therefore, have been the agent's responsibility to pass this information on to Miss C. We also looked at the tendering processes followed by the council and noted that they were not required to follow an open tender process for each statutory notice served. We found that the council had used their major works framework agreement when tendering for this work and that this was in line with their obligations. For this reason, we did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201501377 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council’s decision to request a church bell's chime to be switched off following noise complaints from neighbouring residents. The council’s noise team investigated the complaints as per their duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and they used World Health Organisation guidelines to establish whether the measured noise levels would cause sleep disturbance. As the recorded noise levels from one of the complainants’ properties exceeded the guideline level, the council deemed the noise to be a nuisance. They asked for the chime to be switched off until a longer-term solution could be identified. Mr C noted the historic nature of the church bell. He considered that the council were inappropriately treating it in the same manner as a malfunctioning car alarm or a late night party. The council explained how they investigated the noise complaints. They assured us that they had adhered to their statutory and procedural responsibilities. They noted that their public safety team were responsible for maintaining the church bell. Therefore, they had assumed that the team was also responsible for taking action to resolve the noise complaints. The chime was switched off via an informal agreement with the public safety team and the council felt that a longer-term solution could be quickly identified and agreed. However, it was then clarified that the role of the public safety team did not extend to this, and the church owners were responsible. The council told us they were committed to working with the owners to help find an appropriate solution, and they provided evidence of their ongoing involvement in this process. Apart from the confusion over responsibilities, we concluded that the decision to ask for the chime to be switched off was a discretionary one that the council were entitled to take. We were satisfied that they provided evidence to demonstrate the basis upon which they exercised their professional judgement. As we d

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning site next to his home. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to provide the public with relevant information on a planning application for a new building; that they had failed to consider objections to the planning application (related to the excessive height at the rear of the development); and had failed to pursue enforcement action to have the building removed. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We noted the council accepted that they had failed to provide all the relevant information to the public. In particular, the level difference at the rear of the development should have been identified when the application was processed. The council had apologised and taken action. The council also accepted that this information would have helped Mr C to raise concerns about the development height during the application process, instead of raising the matter as an enforcement issue after the application was approved. We found that the absence of approved external measurements made it impossible for the council to specify what height adjustments should be made for the building to comply with approved plans. However, we accepted that any variation in the height of the building from what was approved was likely to be too marginal to be enforceable. We also found that the ground levels on the application plan were entirely misleading, and should have been corrected by the council to note the likely dominant impact of the development on the garden behind. We found no evidence that the height difference at the rear of the development was fully considered during the application process. We considered that the assessment of the planning application was compromised by the lack of recognition of the extent of the change of ground level. We accepted that the decision not to take direct enforcement action to remove the building was a discretionary decision for the council. However,

Mrs C is a tenant of the council. She said that, for two years, there were water leaks from the flat above. She said this caused damage to her property as well as stress and inconvenience to herself. She complained to us that the council had delayed in completing the necessary works. She said that it took too long to find the cause of the water penetration and that, when she complained to the council, there were delays and confusion. We found that, while the council responded appropriately to the leaks, there had been a delay of a month before necessary electrical safety checks were made. This complaint was, therefore, upheld. It had taken the council some time to find the cause of the water penetration, as there were a number of separate sources. However, we established that this was due to access problems and was outwith the council's control. When Mrs C made her complaint, however, the council did not deal with it in accordance with their stated procedures. All of Mrs C's complaints about the handling of her complaints were upheld. We found that the council had apologised and taken action to address Mrs C's complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201502037 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council about the waste provision for her building, as there were ten communal wheelie bins which were often not collected as scheduled. The council upheld her complaint and agreed to conduct a review. They also agreed to replace the wheelie bins with larger communal bins where possible, as there was some confusion about which team should collect the bins. When the bins had still not been replaced one month later, Ms C emailed the council for an update but did not receive a response. She emailed two further times and again did not get a response, so she brought her complaint to us. We contacted the council, who said that there had been delays due to competing priorities but agreed to carry out the review. However, Ms C was keen to ensure that the communication issues she had experienced were also addressed. The council accepted that they had failed to respond to her emails, so we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained to the council after being expelled from a council venue whilst distributing literature to other members of the public. During our investigation it became clear that the council staff involved were not aware of the relevant policy at the time of the incident, which led to poor communication with Mr C about why he was being asked to leave. The council had since apologised for this, and provided training to all relevant staff on this matter, which we found to be reasonable. On review of the policy in question, it also became clear that the council staff had discretion to make the decision to expel Mr C, so we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. He also complained that the council had failed to follow their complaints procedure. We found that they had failed to stick to their timescales for acknowledging Mr C's complaint, and also failed to contact Mr C to discuss the investigation, despite agreeing to do so. We upheld this complaint, but commented that we did not feel the failings identified would have affected the outcome of the council's investigation.

Mr C complained that, after serving an emergency statutory notice on his property, the council unreasonably failed to inform him of the costs of associated works, and that they failed to tell him of the increasing cost of these works. In addition, he complained that the council failed to comply with their standing orders when procuring works for three statutory notices, and then failed to manage the works properly in line with the correct procedures. We found that the council were not required to inform homeowners of the costs of the emergency notice in advance as, by their very nature, emergency works may be needed before the costs are known. The council provided us with some evidence which suggested that Mr C was notified at the time of the increasing costs of the works. Therefore, we concluded that there was not enough evidence to show that he was not informed of the escalating costs. We did not uphold these elements of his complaint. We found that the council failed to have any reasonable record of the process they followed when tendering for the statutory notices. As a result, we were unable to say whether they followed their standing orders or the correct process. For this reason, we upheld this element of the complaint. We also found that the council had acknowledged carrying out non-emergency works under the emergency statutory notice. This removed the opportunity for neighbours to carry out the works themselves. We noted that the council took this step in order to keep the costs down for residents, as scaffolding was already erected. Nonetheless, the council itself had acknowledged that this was not the correct process, and we upheld this element of the complaint. We made a number of recommendations. These included that the council review their statutory notice procedures, that they refund the administration fee for two of the statutory notices, and that they clarify which aspects of the works were not of an emergency nature and refund the costs

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to repair his floor as it had been damaged by council contractors doing improvement work in his home. He was also unhappy that, when upgrading his bathroom, the council contractors had damaged a shower which belonged to him and which he told them he wanted to keep. Following investigation, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to action their commitment regarding the flooring. The council have apologised to Mr C and will arrange with Mr C for the work to take place. As the council have already taken action on this, we did not make a recommendation. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the broken shower because we found no evidence to support his recollection that the council were made aware that he wanted to keep the shower. Related reading View Decision Report 201406808 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in issuing the final invoice for works to his home required following the issue of a statutory notice in 2007. The works were carried out in 2008 but it was not until January 2015 that the invoice was issued. Mr C was also concerned that this invoice included works carried out under previous statutory notices he had already paid for. In responding to his complaint the council confirmed that the invoice for these works was correctly itemised and they explained the works carried out under this, and previous statutory notices. We considered the evidence provided by both parties. Having done so, we were satisfied that the council had invoiced Mr C for the correct works which were carried out under this statutory notice and that these were distinct from the additional statutory notice work carried out separately. We also noted the steps taken by the council to review each statutory notice case as part of a wider review of their property conservation department. This extensive review carried out by an external agency delayed the issuing of invoices but was carried out in order to ensure that residents were being correctly billed by the council. However, even taking account of the review, we noted that there were significant delays in the council issuing the final invoice and for this reason, we upheld this element of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407198 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a property in Edinburgh. The council issued a statutory notice requiring repairs to chimneys shared with a neighbouring property. A separate notice had been served for work required at the neighbouring property. The property owners asked the council to take over management of the required works, and a project manager and contractor were appointed. An estimate was provided detailing the likely cost and timescale for the works. Scaffolding was erected and a full survey carried out. Mr C complained that, once the scaffolding was erected, the project suffered from unreasonable delays and unexplained increases in the associated costs. Despite his requests for clarification, he was not provided with an adequate explanation as to why the costs had increased. We found the communication from the council and their contractors to be poor. The costs associated with Mr C's property actually decreased, however, no clear explanation was given to him as to what he was being charged for. An independent investigation was carried out to assess the validity of the charges and we were satisfied that the council took Mr C's concerns seriously, waiving costs that had been added to the project unreasonably. However, we were critical of the quality of their communication throughout the project.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. He was concerned that the council accepted plans of the proposed extension that resulted in an incorrect impression being given of the size of the extension, and that there were errors in the report prepared on the application. He was also concerned that the extension was out of character with the surrounding area and would have a detrimental effect on his amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings), in that his sunlight and daylight would be compromised. Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond to his concerns about these issues. He also complained that the council had failed to follow their complaints procedure. During our investigation we took independent advice from our planning adviser. We found that, while there were some errors in the report prepared on the planning application, these were not material to the decision on the application. We were also aware that the professional judgement of the council was that the development would not have a detrimental impact on neighbourhood character or amenity. We were satisfied that the council properly took into account the relevant guidance and planning policies. In the absence of evidence of procedural omissions in the council's handling of the application we did not uphold this complaint. On the issue of sunlight and daylight, our adviser said that the council properly assessed these as planning authority, and that the development would not result in any unreasonable loss of natural light to neighbouring properties. We were satisfied that the council had reasonably responded to Mr C's concerns about these issues and we did not uphold the complaint. We were also satisfied that the council considered and reasonably responded to Mr C’s representations. While we were concerned that, although Mr C indicated during stage one of the council's complaints process that he wanted to s

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. He said Mr A's flat had not been redecorated as promised whilst Mr A was staying in temporary accomodation. Work on his kitchen had not been completed, and a damp problem within the bathroom had not been completely rectified. Mr C also said Mr A felt the investigation into his complaint had been partial and had unfairly discounted his version of events. Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged that Mr A's kitchen work and bathroom work had not been completed, and we upheld these complaints. The council had apologised and proposed an appropriate solution. Mr A had, however, subsequently moved tenancy and so we made no further recommendations. We found the council's investigation into Mr A's complaint had been conducted in line with their complaints handling policy and that there was insufficient evidence to uphold this complaint against the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201403698 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for work carried out that was not in the statutory notice (where the council arrange for work to be done and then recoup the cost from the property owners) that they had issued to him and his neighbours. The statutory notice referred to the repair of defective stair treads. However, the contractors appointed by the council to carry out the works resurfaced the whole stairwell and landing. The council then billed Mr C and his neighbours for this. Mr C had raised this with the council when the contractors arrived to carry out the work, but the council failed to respond to him at that time. We found that the council should have informed property owners of the additional flooring work exceeding the work referred to in the statutory notice. We said that the council should only charge Mr C for the work carried out under the statutory notice, particularly as he had raised the matter with the council on the day that the contractors arrived, but had not received a response. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints. There had initially been significant delays by the council in responding to Mr C's complaint. The council had then carried out a review, but this only considered Mr C's complaint about the quality of the work by the contractors. The council failed to consider Mr C's complaint about the additional work that was carried out that was not in the statutory notice. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Miss C complained that the council failed to properly investigate when she complained to them that she had been knocked off her bicycle by a council employee who opened his van door directly into her path. She complained that the driver did not stop to make sure she was unhurt. She said he said that she should have rung her bell and he then left in his van. She also complained to our office about the significant length of time it had taken the council to respond to her complaint. The council eventually wrote to Miss C to advise that they were unable to trace the van or driver from the details Miss C had provided and could not, therefore, accept any liability for the incident. Although the issue of liability in an accident like this can only be determined by the courts, we did look into the background of the case in order to establish whether or not the council's investigations into the incident were reasonable, and whether they had dealt with Miss C's complaint appropriately. We found that the council did conduct an investigation to identify the van and driver involved but, on the basis of the limited information provided by Miss C, they were unable to identify the vehicle or driver. We found their investigations to be reasonable. However, we noted that the council initially failed completely to respond to Miss C's complaint and, when they did contact her, this was through the claims process rather than the complaints process. We noted that the council did not respond to the questions Miss C raised in her complaint even after prompting by our office. It was not until we had begun our investigation that the council finally wrote to Miss C to answer her questions and to provide information about how to complain to our office. As a result of these failings, and the significant delay in responding to her complaint (around 15 months), we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended to the council that they review their procedures, in light of our findings, in orde

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his social work complaint. The council convened a social work complaints review committee (CRC) to hear Mr C's complaint, but did so on the basis of written submissions from both Mr C and the social work department, rather than allowing Mr C to attend in person. Mr C complained to us about the appropriateness of the decision to hold the hearing in private and also about the overall delay in responding to his complaint. In addition, he complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate reasons to support the eventual decision not to uphold his complaint. We considered that the council had taken reasonable steps in order to ensure that a fair and balanced review of Mr C's complaint was carried out. They had undertaken an assessment of the risks involved in him attending the CRC meeting in person, and Mr C and the social work department were given equal opportunity to submit written representations. We were satisfied that this fulfilled the council's statutory obligations, and that their decision to hold the hearing in private did not contravene the relevant directions. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we were concerned with the level of information provided to Mr C by the council in support of the decision. We considered it reasonable to expect a fuller explanation of the reasons underpinning the decision to have been provided, particularly as Mr C was not given the opportunity to attend the hearing. Further, while we noted that this case raised particular challenges for the council, we considered that the overall time it took them to respond to Mr C's complaint was unreasonable. We upheld these two aspects of the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had charged him a call-out fee for their shared repair service. The council advised that there would be a call-out charge if the issue was not considered as an emergency. When a council officer attended Mr C's property it did not appear to be an emergency and no action was taken, and a call-out charge was issued to Mr C. We found that Mr C had been informed of the possibility of a call-out charge and there was no evidence that the issue should have been noted as an emergency. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406917 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not informed him that they were no longer pursuing a proposed scheme to reduce parking pressures near his home. Mr C became aware of this when the council changed the road markings outside his house, and they were not to the style indicated in the previous proposal. Mr C said he had not been informed of the proposed change to the road markings. Mr C also complained that the council had not carried out a risk assessment prior to the change, and had not responded reasonably to his concerns about speeding, or his complaint about the above matters. We found that the council had concluded their consultation on the first proposal and published their findings. The decision to alter the road markings was an entirely separate process. The council put up notices and placed an advert in a newspaper about the change to the road markings, in line with their statutory duties. We also noted that the council were not required to send individual notices to each resident. Therefore, we did not uphold these complaints. We also found that the council were not required to carry out a risk assessment prior to changing the road markings as they were not considered radical changes. We did not uphold this complaint. When Mr C reported concerns about speeding on his road, the council conducted a speed survey. The results of this indicated that the average speed of drivers was below the speed limit and the council took no further action. We found that the council had responded to Mr C's concerns and complaint in a timely manner and with reasonable responses. Therefore, we did not uphold these complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201406748 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that it took the council over four months to identify the cause of a leak to the living room window at his former home, and also the time taken to complete the work. He was unhappy with the disruption caused to his family and with the council's refusal to refund one month's rent. We were satisfied that the council's initial action was reasonable and in accordance with their repairs policy when Mr C first reported the problem. However, there was a lack of evidence to show the action that the council took following a further inspection around three weeks later when the leak continued. The council's refusal to refund one month's rent was on the basis that they did not consider the property was uninhabitable and that alternative accommodation had been offered. On reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that the council's position was reasonable. In relation to the time taken to complete the work, we found that the inspections carried out were within the council's timescales and that repair work was also done within a reasonable timescale.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for the development of a local sports ground. Mr C said the council's report to the development management sub-committee contained significant errors and omissions and that, as a result, the committee did not make its decision on the basis of all the material considerations as required by law. Mr C listed eight separate areas where he considered there to be failings by the council. This included that there was an unreasonable failure by the council to adequately assess the information provided by the applicant about the height of the stadium, the size (footprint) of the development and attendance figures, and to ensure that this was correct. Mr C also said the council unreasonably failed to have regard to, and report properly on, the independent report obtained by consultants on the methodology used in the transport submission to the planning application. We obtained independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a planning adviser. Our adviser did not find failings by the council in six of the eight areas identified by Mr C in his complaint. On the first of the remaining two areas, our adviser considered that the council did not unreasonably fail to adequately assess the information provided by the applicant about the height of the stadium, the size (footprint) of the development and attendance figures, and ensure that this was correct, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, our adviser was concerned about the planning report's lack of clarity in relation to the height dimensions detailed in Mr C's complaint so we made a recommendation to address this. On the second matter, we accepted the council's view that they were not required to include every detail of the consultants' report in their planning report. However, we were concerned that, having commissioned an external assessment by consultants on the transport methodology used in this case (in response to concerns raised about the

Mr C complained about the council's decision to allow changes to a planning application for a house in the local conservation area by considering them as a non-material variation. Mr C was concerned that this meant that residents did not have the right to object to the development. In addition, he was concerned that the council had failed to take into account relevant policies when granting permission for the felling of three trees on the site. We found that the changes to the original design actually reduced the size of the proposals and meant that the impact on the area of the new build would be less, under the new proposals, than it would have been under the original application. We considered that the planning officer's decision to consider this as a non-material variation, rather than requiring a new application, was reasonable. We also noted the council's reasons for allowing the removal of the trees and noted that they would be replaced with native varieties. As these were both discretionary decisions of the council, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council reached their decision, we did not uphold these complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201406386 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018