SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C, who is a councillor, complained on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) that the council had not made a proper offer of housing to her and that they had not responded reasonably to his complaints about this. Ms A was designated as being homeless and under statutory legislation was entitled to two priority offers of accommodation. If she refused these, she would be placed on the standard housing waiting list. Mr C complained to us about the second offer of priority housing. Our investigation found that there was evidence that in making their offer the council followed their procedure, which complied with the relevant legislation. We also found evidence to suggest that Ms A refused the offer, although Mr C had disputed this. The council provided copies of internal documentation, as well as screen shots from their computer system and of a note of a phone conversation with Ms A. Both sides provided evidence that Ms A had appealed a decision by the council on the property in question. The documentation provided to applicants made it clear that appealing the decision would mean that the council would deem the property to have been refused and/or withdrawn. On balance, we considered that the offer had been duly made and then refused. On the matter of how the council dealt with Mr C's complaint, we found that at the time the council had a three-stage complaints process, which set out timescales by which each stage should be dealt with. The council did not adhere to those timescales and so we upheld the complaint. Since then, the council have introduced the new, nationally adopted, two-stage process based on the model procedure from our Complaints Standards Authority. The council also told us that they had reviewed their complaints resourcing and provided additional resources on a six-month trial basis, after which this would be reviewed.

Miss C complained to the council about the actions of their agents while they were pursuing a debt with her, and the way she had been spoken to by a council officer on the phone. The council did not respond to her specific concern about the council officer when they replied to her complaints, and so Miss C raised this with us. Our investigation found that the council had taken steps to clarify the specific matters Miss C wished to complain of. As these included the way she had been spoken to by a council officer and this was not addressed in the council's response, we upheld the complaint.

Ms C received emails from a council officer that contained comments that she felt were inappropriate. She complained to the council about these and had to chase up replies. When the replies were given, Ms C was dissatisfied with them and complained to us. We contacted the council asking whether they would act to resolve the complaint, and they did take some action. We then decided to investigate the complaints, and concluded that the emails did contain inappropriate comments about Ms C, and that the council had not responded reasonably to her complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised to her for the inappropriate comments, we did not need to make a recommendation about this.

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council did not follow procedures when dealing with a statutory notice served on their former property. A statutory notice was served in 2007 for maintenance work on the property, a tenement building with eight flats. The property owners were unable to reach agreement about carrying out the work, and the council were asked to take over the project. After a tendering process, a contractor was appointed and scaffolding erected. There was a full survey, additional works were found to be needed and the cost of the project increased substantially. An emergency statutory notice was served and property owners were billed retrospectively. When the bill was issued, Mr C and Ms C found that the total cost of the project had risen by more than £20,000. They complained that the initial survey was carried out from street level by a council employee who was not a qualified surveyor. They did not think it possible for an accurate assessment to be completed from the ground, and said that the notice should not have been served until the scaffolding was erected and the full inspection carried out. They also complained about the escalation in the scale and cost of the work required on the property. We found that the council had generally followed the procedure that they had in place at the time for serving statutory notices and for taking over the management of repairs. However, we found that non-emergency works were inappropriately included in the emergency notice and that the property owners were not properly told about the additional works identified or the costs they would be expected to cover. Given the sums involved, we were critical that there was no detailed record of the surveys, and of a lack of evidence of the work that was needed.

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with his housing application appropriately, and that their response to his complaint was unreasonable. Mr C was formerly in the armed forces, and was of the view that the council's poor handling of his application showed they were prejudiced against former military personnel. Mr C had a waiting time ('credit' that decides where the person will be on the housing list) of just over 30 years, in relation to his application for a council house. This was because housing applicants who have left the armed forces within three years of making an application may have their application backdated to the date they entered the armed forces. However, even with 30 years waiting time, Mr C's application was ranked below those with priority status. Priority status can only be awarded after an assessment, and is normally based on factors such as preventing long term hospital and care home admissions, the need for adaptations to a property, homelessness, or overcrowding. The council's policy, based on an agreement with the armed forces, did not provide former armed forces personnel with enhanced eligibility for housing; it simply provided additional waiting time. We found that the council had wrongly cancelled Mr C's housing account for 16 months. During that time, Mr C kept bidding for houses on the council's website, but he was unaware that these were not being considered as he did not receive an error message. The council had acknowledged that his account was cancelled but said that this did not disadvantage him in any way. We could not, however, see how they reached this conclusion. We found that the council dealt reasonably with some aspects of Mr C's complaint,but did not respond to others. They also provided us with information that they should have given Mr C when they were dealing with it. We could not see any evidence of prejudice against Mr C because he was formerly in the armed forces. However, we upheld his compla

Miss C said that for nearly two years her child had experienced bullying at school and that the problem was not being resolved. Miss C said that matters had reached the point where her child's sleep and health were affected and that, on occasion, her child was refusing to go to school. Miss C said that the behaviour of the children concerned was becoming worse and that the school were failing to take reasonable measures to protect her child. When investigating the complaint, we carefully considered the complaints correspondence, the school's incident log, the council's anti-bullying policy and the school's policy on promoting positive behaviour. Our investigation found that, while bullying had taken place, not all of the incidents were directed against Miss C's child, and sometimes allegations had been made about her child as well. However, all reported incidents had been logged and the action taken about them was recorded. The school believed that the situation was improving and the evidence available confirmed this. Although we understood the difficult situation in which Miss C and her child found themselves, we did not uphold the complaint as we found that the school had taken all reasonable measures to deal with the matter. Related reading View Decision Report 201303975 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said that during gale force winds the boundary wall between a council building and his home collapsed. The debris fell into his garden, damaging his property, and he made a compensation claim to the council. The company who handled this on the council's behalf turned the claim down, and Mr C complained to us that in doing so they followed an unreasonable process. He said that they did not consider all relevant evidence, failed to clearly and consistently explain the reasons for their decision and delayed unreasonably in processing his claim. Although we found that the company's record-keeping was lacking at some points, we found no evidence that they failed to consider all the evidence required to process the claim. Neither did we find the timescales in processing his claim unreasonable, although they should have written with an update during the early stages. They responded to Mr C's remaining enquiries quite promptly. The documentation confirmed, however, that the company changed the rationale behind their decision during the course of the correspondence. This would not have been unreasonable if new evidence had come to light. However, we could see no clear reason for the differing explanations. The company made no further enquiries and did not obtain new evidence after issuing their second decision letter, but continued with the change in their reasoning. They also failed to respond to one of Mr C's main arguments in support of his claim, although they had information about this from the council. There was no clear record of the company's actions in response to each of Mr C's communications, or of how this affected their decision-making. We were also critical because the council did not deal with this under their complaints procedure. The determination of liability would be a matter for the courts. However, a complaint about the administrative handling of a claim falls within the remit of the council's complaints procedure and should have been de

Mrs C's neighbour is a council tenant living in temporary accommodation. Mrs C said that the tenant was noisy on a number of occasions, and she was unhappy with the council's response to the problem. She complained that the council were not dealing with this effectively, and that a housing officer gave neighbours incorrect information about who to contact if there were further problems. We reviewed the relevant records and correspondence, as well as the council's comments on the complaint and their procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. We concluded that the council's actions were reasonable and were taken in line with their procedure. We also found no evidence that the housing officer had given incorrect information about who to contact, so we could not uphold Mrs C's complaint and we made no recommendations. We did, however, suggest to the council that they could in future consider providing written information, such as a leaflet, for neighbours with details of who to contact about any further antisocial behaviour. Related reading View Decision Report 201305629 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C is the head of care at a service providing education and care for young people with additional support needs. A council who placed young people there complained to the Care Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) about the service. The council was unhappy with the outcome of the Inspectorate's investigation, on the basis that a number of key individuals had not been interviewed, and requested a review. The Inspectorate received another complaint from a former service user at this time, which was investigated alongside the review. The outcome of the review was that all of the council's complaints were upheld. Most of the former service user's complaints were also upheld. Ms C then complained to the Inspectorate about the way in which they handled both investigations. She felt that in their review the Inspectorate went beyond the remit of the original investigation, by interviewing staff not relevant to the council's original complaint, and that they took irrelevant information as fact. She was also dissatisfied that one of her colleagues was not interviewed, despite allegations being made against him. Ms C also said that when she was interviewed, the Inspectorate failed to complete their paperwork in line with their procedures. The Inspectorate partially upheld two of Ms C's complaints. They apologised for some inaccuracies and said that their outcome letters could have been clearer. Although they did not consider that this affected their overall findings, they amended both outcome letters. Ms C was unhappy with the way in which they investigated both her complaints and complained to us. We considered that the Inspectorate had broad discretion about who they interviewed and the judgements they made on evidence obtained from their investigations. We considered that the individuals interviewed were appropriate and related to the matters under investigation. We also found no evidence to show that the Inspectorate did not consider information put forward by th

Mr C complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of enquiries he had made to them about the prospect of developing a plot of land he had purchased. In particular, he was concerned that the council had released his private email address and information to a councillor and a third party. He also said that the planning officer he had spoken to had acted incorrectly in giving pre-application advice; the council had not acted in an open and transparent way during a phone call about a proposal to place a tree preservation order (TPO) on a tree on the land; and that their action in placing a TPO on the tree was unreasonable. During our investigation we found no evidence to support Mr C's allegation that the council released his private email address or information to a councillor or third party. We were also satisfied that the planning officer acted correctly in relation to the advice offered. We did, however, take the view that it would have been helpful had the officer clarified that Mr C had the right to submit a planning application and obtain a formal decision from the planning authority. There was no evidence to support Mr C's concern that a member of staff did not act in an open and transparent manner during a phone conversation about the TPO. We also found that members of the public had written to the council requesting that a TPO be placed on the tree, and that it was appropriate for the council to take the action they did in putting a TPO in place. We were also satisfied that the TPO request was considered under the council's evaluation criteria. However, we did find that some of the terminology used did not reflect current TPO regulations.

Mr C complained about the way in which the council handled a complaint he made about social work involvement with him and his family. He was unhappy that the council asked him to restrict the information he wanted to present to a social work complaints review committee (CRC) and said that the council allowed the CRC to take place knowing that it would be unable to address the details of his complaint. He also complained that the council had referred him to the SPSO inappropriately and that a council manager involved in investigating his stage two complaint had also been involved in the social work decision-making. We took the view that the council did not request this to try to prevent Mr C from putting forward his detailed arguments. It was intended as helpful advice, given their knowledge of CRCs and how they operate. The request was, however, worded in such a way that they asked (rather than advised) him to restrict the amount of information he presented to the CRC. The council were able to give him advice, but our view was that only the members of the CRC itself could ask him to restrict his submission and so we upheld this element of his complaint. We did not uphold his other complaints. We found that Mr C was given the opportunity to speak about this in full at the CRC and that CRC members had access to his full submission. There was, therefore, no evidence that they were unable to consider his complaints sufficiently and robustly. We also took the view that the council acted correctly by referring Mr C to the SPSO, in line with their obligations under the SPSO Act, and the evidence we saw did not support his view that the manager was involved in investigating the complaint.

Organisation C complained to the Commissioner about the actions of a councillor who chaired a public design competition initiated by the council. Two members of the organisation were council employees at the time of the competition, and the organisation said that there had been attempts to coerce them to inappropriately influence the competition process. The organisation also alleged the councillor had acted inappropriately in relation to the competition. The Commissioner investigated and made a finding that there had been no breach of the code of conduct for councillors (the code). Organisation C complained to us that the decision was wrong because the Commissioner's view that there was a gap in the evidence for the first allegation and that the second allegation was out of jurisdiction did not justify the conclusions made. They were also concerned about how the evidence of whistleblowers was treated. We did not uphold the first complaint, as the decisions outlined in the Commissioner’s letter were sufficient to justify his view that there had been no breach of the code. However, we were concerned that the note of the decision contained significant additional comments that seemed to make judgements on the actions of the councillor, and on the actions of the council itself. It was not clear what standards the Commissioner was using to judge this, as the actions of the council were clearly not covered by the code and, in the case of the actions of the councillor, the Commissioner had said they were not. We explained that this was confusing and made a recommendation on this point. On the complaint about the way whistleblowing evidence had been handled, we found no evidence that the Commissioner had made errors in his assessment of what weight to put on the evidence or fact-finding. However, we were concerned that staff were named in a public report. This appeared to have been out of line with the Commissioner's standard practice and we were not persuaded by t

Mr C had lived in his parents' council house for many years with his wife (Mrs C), but did not become the tenant until after his father died in February 2007. This was after the modernised right to buy a council house was introduced in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. This reduced the maximum discount that could be given (to people who became tenants after September 2002) to 35 percent or £15,000, whichever was less. When Mr C took over the tenancy he asked a council officer if he could apply to buy the house. She wrongly told him that as a new tenant with a modified right to buy, he would have to wait five years. Four years later, in 2011, Mr C wrote to a senior housing officer asking again about this. In replying, the senior officer repeated the first officer's error that Mr C had to wait five years before applying. Seven months after that, Mr C discussed the matter with a housing manager, but they did not correct the previous misinformation. The council then began a consultation exercise on designating the whole of the council's area as having pressured area status (removing a tenant's general right to buy under the modernised scheme) and this came into place on 1 February 2012. Under these circumstances, should they wish to sell a house, the council have to apply to Scottish Ministers for consent for a voluntary sale. Mr C then found out that he could have applied to buy his home as soon as he became a tenant. He formally complained to the council that he had been given incorrect information three times, and that the general right to buy had since been removed. They upheld his complaint; and eventually agreed with Mr C that he would allow access to have his home valued, and that they would be prepared to make the case for consent to sell to him at the £15,000 maximum discount with an allowance for rent paid from March 2011. Mr C, however, thought that the remedy for his complaint did not go far enough and that the allowance for rent should extend bac

Mr C complained that the council had incorrectly advised him about his entitlement to council tax exemption and had not administered his application for an exemption properly. Mr C told us he had purchased a house from a builder but that the building work on the property had not been completed. After buying the property, Mr C told the council that he would not be able to move in until works were complete and requested that the appropriate exemptions to council tax be applied. The council said that Mr C did not meet the criteria for a council tax exemption because more than twelve months had elapsed between the last day of the previous occupancy and the date of his entry into the property. Mr C complained to us that he had complied with advice from the council, but that the evidence he had submitted in support of his application for an exemption had been ignored. He said that they rejected his application, referring to a category he had not applied for; had not acknowledged the contradictions in the advice he had received, nor had they accepted that his documentation had not been processed. Our investigation found that Mr C had made two council tax exemption applications under different criteria. The council had considered both of these in good time, and had correctly applied the council tax (Exemption Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 and the council tax exemption procedures. We found no evidence that they had provided Mr C with incorrect and misleading advice, or that his applications had been administered inappropriately. We also found they had responded in good time to Mr C's initial complaint, although there was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation about this delay, noting that the council had apologised to Mr C for this before he brought his complaint to us.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her elderly mother (Mrs A), who had been served with a summary warrant for non-payment of council tax. Mrs C said her mother had not received the necessary reminder letters that should be issued when a council tax instalment is not paid on the due date. She believed that the council had failed to follow the correct process and was unhappy that a summary warrant was served and a bill for late payment issued in addition to Mrs A's council tax. She remained dissatisfied with what she saw as the council's unsympathetic response after she had made them aware that her mother had suffered two strokes in the last eighteen months which had left her unwell, disorientated and confused. Although we appreciated that Mrs A had been unwell, there was evidence that she had been made aware of her responsibility to pay council tax and what would happen if she did not pay on the due date. We checked and were satisfied that the council had issued the reminder letters, noting that they have a duty to collect council tax in accordance with the legislation and are not able to take individual circumstances into account in the way Mrs C had thought they should. There was no evidence to show that the letters were not delivered, and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint as there was nothing to suggest that the council had done anything wrong. Related reading View Decision Report 201304029 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's child exhibited behaviour that led to a guidance teacher suggesting that the child be assessed for Asperger's syndrome disorder. Meanwhile the school worked on a protocol to manage the child's behaviour in class. Before this could be put in place, however, the child was involved in an incident that led to a referral to an Additional Needs Tribunal. The tribunal said that the council had not made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Mr C then requested a coordinated support plan for his child but this took over eight months to finalise. Mr C complained to us that in planning his child's education the council did not apply policy and procedures to meet the additional support needs required, and failed to ensure that the school communicated with him and his wife appropriately and adequately. He also complained that they did not ensure that the school maintained adequate record-keeping, and that problems with his child's attendance were not promptly addressed. We upheld three of Mr C's four complaints. We found that the guideline for providing a support plan is four weeks, and that the council had taken far too long to provide this at a particularly important time in the child's education. We also found that communications were inappropriate and that on three occasions records were inadequate. We did not uphold the complaint about attendance, as we did not find sufficient evidence to do so.

Mr C was unhappy that the council breached a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He told us that, because a council officer made wrong assumptions about which tree was to be felled, the council had granted permission for the felling of a healthy tree that was the subject of a TPO. Before Mr C brought his complaint to us, the council had acknowledged their error and apologised to him for it. However, Mr C said that the council had given him unsatisfactory and confusing responses to his complaint. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that the council had focused on inadequate explanations for the errors, instead of reviewing their procedures as they should have done. As the council appeared to have given more weight to defending their actions than to reviewing procedures, inconsistencies had then emerged in their responses to Mr C. The council had acknowledged that the wrong tree had been felled, and that the tree had not been properly identified before permission was given, which was a relatively serious mistake. The adviser had concerns that the complaint was not investigated thoroughly enough, especially as the deficiencies related to planning procedures. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council's investigation and complaints handling was inadequate and inconsistent.

Mrs A was unhappy with the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. Her daughter (Miss C) complained on her behalf that council planning officers had considered the application, under delegated powers. She said that the application should have been referred to a council committee as she understood that it related to land that was in council ownership. She also complained that the council had failed to consult with those neighbouring the site, and unreasonably allowed the extension to be built over a culvert (a drain or covered channel that allows water to flow under a road) in a flood risk area. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in approving the planning application under delegated powers. They had provided Miss C with documentation showing that they did not own any of the land to which the planning application referred. We were also satisfied that the council had carried out the neighbour notification process appropriately and had not needed to consult with some organisations that Miss C thought should have been involved. Finally, we noted that there was no presumption against development over culverts such as this one, and that the existence of the culvert had been fully taken into account during the planning process. Related reading View Decision Report 201104865 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not reasonably investigate reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour, who is a council tenant, and about whom there had been many other complaints. Ms C wrote to the council several times, then contact stopped for a year, by the end of which Mr and Mrs A had moved. When Ms C first contacted us over a year after that, we told her that she would first need to complain through the council’s complaints procedures. She did so, and then complained again to us. We suspended our consideration of the complaint to allow further information to be supplied, explaining to Ms C that we could normally only look at a complaint about something that had happened, or that she had found out about, within the last twelve months. When we re-opened her complaint, we found we were effectively restricted to looking into matters for about a seven month period, until before Mr and Mrs A moved out. We considered the council’s actions during that period, and found that they had issued a final warning to the tenant. Our investigation did not find this unreasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201205406 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to us about the council's involvement in the naming of a nearby property. The name chosen by the other owner – and approved by the council – was almost identical to the name of Mrs C’s property. This caused problems with the mail, of which Mrs C became aware when she received letters for the owner of the second property. The council explained that they check naming requests when they receive an application. However, in this case, their checks had not identified Mrs C’s property, because her property name consisted of a single word. The second application had a space in the name, although otherwise the name was identical to that of Mrs C’s property. The council acknowledged that their checks failed to identify the similarity. However, they explained that they had alerted Royal Mail to the situation to prevent future mix-ups. They also outlined their legal role in naming and numbering streets, and explained that their house naming policy aimed to prevent confusion or duplication of names. However, as property owners are responsible for property names the council said they could not legally force a change. We upheld Mrs C’s complaint as the council had failed to identify Mrs C’s property in line with their policy.

Mrs C complained about how the council investigated her complaint about how a school had treated her child (who had been identified as having additional support needs). She said that she felt the investigation was biased and unfair. Our investigation found that in looking into Mrs C's complaint the council gathered information from only one source, the school's head teacher. They explained that this was because other sources were not available when they investigated the complaint (during the school summer holidays). We concluded, however, that this meant the council did not demonstrate that their investigation was balanced and reasonable. They could not contact people with potentially relevant information during the holidays but, instead of postponing the investigation until all parties could be contacted, they decided to go ahead with it. We took the view that it would have been helpful for them to have obtained evidence from an external support service and teaching staff who had provided ongoing support to Mrs C's child and who had been involved in a review meeting that Mrs C had found unsatisfactory.

Mr and Mrs C’s child was diagnosed with autism. Their child was placed in a primary school, as they had wished, and received 25 hours learning assistance support a week, in the primary two year. There were, however, problems in managing the child's behaviour in class. As the primary three class would be larger, a meeting was held at the primary school during the summer, attended by Mr and Mrs C, their advocate, and various professionals. They discussed the child's imminent transfer and issues that school staff were having with managing the child's behaviour. Mr and Mrs C’s child started primary three in a mainstream class but the following month the head teacher decided that the child's schoolday should be reduced to five hours, with two learning assistants supporting the child together. During the year, following further incidents, the head teacher excluded the child, and called Mr and Mrs C in for a meeting. Mrs C attended and after discussing matters with her husband, told the head teacher that they would not accept the terms set out for readmittance. Their child did not return to the primary school, and Mr and Mrs C appealed to an exclusion appeals committee. After the committee met, Mr and Mrs C were offered ,and eventually accepted, a place elsewhere. Our investigation upheld Mr and Mrs C’s complaints that the council failed to take the appropriate steps in following their exclusion process and, in particular, that an out-of-date leaflet had been issued and that the council failed to keep adequate records. We did not uphold their complaints that the council failed to follow a clear plan for their child's inclusion, that staff had unreasonably restrained their child, and that the council had unreasonably pressured Mr and Mrs C into sending a placing request.

Ms C, who was a homeless applicant, was offered and accepted the tenancy of a council house. She subsequently reported a number of defects and made a number of requests for repairs, most significantly with respect to smells in her wet shower room, the operation of the central heating, a leaking roof and poor drainage in the rear garden, before applying for a transfer some two months after moving in. Ms C complained that the council unreasonably refused to carry out remedial work to bring her home up to the required housing standards. Our investigation found that Ms C had accepted the house on the basis that it met her personal requirements, and the council explained that when it was allocated to her they considered it to have been of a lettable standard. After she moved in, Ms C had made a number of requests for repairs, and other repairs were requisitioned by council officers. We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found no evidence that the house did not meet the requisite letting standard when allocated to Ms C or that remedial work was required to bring it up to standard. Related reading View Decision Report 201205210 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C raised objections with the council about the proposed building of a house in the area beyond her garden. One of her objections was in relation to the distance between her house and the proposed house. A council report to the planning committee said that revisions to the application had ensured a minimum separation distance of 15 metres from the nearest house. The committee considered and approved the application. Ms C complained to the council that there were less than 15 metres between her house and the proposed house and that no planning conditions had been made to address this. The council's response acknowledged that the distance quoted in the report was incorrect and apologised for this but noted that the scale drawings showed the correct distances and had been available at the committee meeting. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who reviewed the information, including the committee report and layout plan. He said that accurate distance statements existed elsewhere in the report and in the drawings, and explained that it was clear from the papers presented to the committee that the proposed development was not square on to Ms C's property. His view was that the committee was most unlikely to have been misled by the error. The council had acknowledged the error and, therefore, we upheld the complaint. However, in light of the fact that the council had already apologised to Ms C, and that the adviser felt that it was most unlikely that the committee would have been misled, we decided that no recommendations were needed. Related reading View Decision Report 201302595 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council were seeking to recover council tax and penalty charges from her that related to the year 1999. She said that she had paid all outstanding debts and that, although she could not prove this, neither could the council prove that she did not make payment. We considered the information she provided and information obtained from our enquiries to the council. Councils do not usually keep copies of all correspondence in respect of historic debts, and in this case the council were able to show us that they issued a council tax bill and reminders at the time, as required by the regulations. As they were able to show that Ms C was billed at the time, and as they had no record of payment being received, we found no evidence that they failed to comply with their responsibilities under the council tax regulations. As there was no evidence of administrative failure in the way this matter was dealt with, we could not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201303148 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018