SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained that the council were incorrectly pursuing her for payment of council tax arrears for a period after she had vacated her rented flat. Ms C said that she had paid the council tax demand she had received from the council, and when she notified them she was moving out two months before the lease ended, she was told her account had been closed. Subsequently, she had received council tax demands for sums due before she left, and until the formal end of her lease. The council had admitted to her that they had made mistakes with her council tax account. However, Ms C told us that they had not satisfactorily explained to her why they had told her that her account would be closed when she vacated the flat, had then made further demands, and then continued to send her demands for different amounts. We upheld Ms C's complaint because it was clear not only that she had been given incorrect advice at the outset that her account would close when she vacated the flat, but there had been a catalogue of errors following on from this in the handling of her council tax liability. The council had recognised that their service to her was poor when they responded to her formal complaints, and apologised. However, we considered that more could be done to resolve Ms C's complaint because the council had failed to provide her with demands for payment which showed that they had correctly calculated both what she had paid into her account, and what she owed.

Mr C complained to us about the contract of repairs undertaken under statutory notices served by the council on the tenement property where he stayed. He considered it inappropriate that, after independent review of the project, the council were still proposing to charge a 15 percent administration fee. He also complained about the council's failure to offer him an apology for the inconvenience and stress which had been caused to him by delay. In response to our enquiry, the council said they had a legal entitlement to recover the administrative fee, and this had been reduced in line with the reduction to the final account. They explained that the company who undertook the independent review had, in some cases, made recommendations to partially or fully waive the council's administrative fee, but had not done so in this instance. Taking this advice into account in our consideration, we concluded that there were no grounds to pursue this issue further. However, when we looked at the time-frame since the project commenced to completion of the works (further works were undertaken following review), we found that although the council had apologised where there had been poor communication and delay in responding to Mr C, the process had been extremely long to complete, and that it had been a stressful situation. We recommended to the council that they write to Mr C apologising for the stress and inconvenience he had suffered due to the delay in completing the repair works.

Ms C complained to us following the Scottish Information Commissioner's decision that the council had complied with the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 in responding to her request for a breakdown of statutory notice costs: she said that the council had unreasonably failed to provide her with a satisfactory explanation about how the final accounts for repairs to a tenement (where she was an owner) had been calculated. Ms C also complained that the council had allowed additional works to be started before a statutory notice had been served. From our investigation we did not uphold Ms C's complaint because we found that the information she had been provided with by the council followed their usual practice, and they had not, therefore, acted unreasonably. Further, the additional works had been the subject of an emergency notice, and the council had the power under the relevant legislation to issue such a notice after the works had commenced. Related reading View Decision Report 201406264 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

Miss C complained about the final account issued by the council for statutory repair works which had been undertaken on a flat she owned in Edinburgh. The project had been the subject of independent review, and further works had been undertaken (for which she had not been charged). There had been an overall reduction in the bill. However, Miss C complained to us about the council's 15 percent administration fee, because she considered this was inappropriate on top of the amount assessed by the independent review. She also complained about the tone of the council's response to her returning the discharge form with agreement to paying her share of the works minus the administration fee. In response to our enquiry, the council said they had a legal entitlement to recover the administrative fee, and this had been reduced in line with the reduction to the final account. They explained that the company that undertook the independent review had, in some cases, made recommendations to partially or fully waive the council's administrative fee, but had not done so in this instance. Taking this advice into account, we did not uphold the complaint. Miss C had also asked for the reimbursement of her share of the cost of expenses incurred by the owners for professional services, but as this had also been considered as part of the review and a decision taken not to pay, we considered we had no grounds to challenge this. We did uphold Miss C's complaint about the tone of the council's letter, and noted from our enquiry to the council that they accepted that her complaint was justified and were addressing the concerns which had been raised.

Miss C complained that the council delayed in carrying out repairs and upgrade works to her home. We found that the council acknowledged there had been delays, and so we upheld Miss C's complaint. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to remedy the situation, and so we did not make any recommendations in this case. Related reading View Decision Report 201405000 as a PDF (10.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the council's handling of a planning application, for which they had granted permission. She complained that the council had misled the development management sub-committee by the wording of the report of handling. She also said they had gone against the local plan and had not considered all the material planning issues. The council admitted that some of the wording in the report of handling could have been clearer and more accurate. However, they said they did not believe that this led the sub-committee to make a decision that they would not have made with the more accurate wording. The council said they had considered all the material issues and did not believe the planning permission granted breached the local plan. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who agreed that some of the wording could be improved. For this reason we upheld this complaint and made a recommendation. The adviser did say however, that they did not believe this led the sub-committee to make a decision contrary to the one they would have made if the report was more accurate. The adviser was satisfied that the council had not breached the local plan and had the relevant powers to make the discretionary decisions involved in this case. The adviser also found that the council had considered all the material issues that they would be expected to consider. We accepted this advice and did not uphold these complaints.

Ms C complained that the council had failed to maintain their promise to ensure that the glass waste from the bins outside her property was collected as scheduled. When we asked them for information, the council took the opportunity to review the complaint and told us that they were sorry for their failure to sustain the level of service that Ms C was entitled to receive, and apologised for their shortcomings. They recognised that the short-term resolutions they had previously put in place for Ms C had not resolved the matter, and told us what they were doing to ensure a resolution. We upheld Ms C's complaint as we found that the council had been at fault, but we were satisfied with the action they proposed. Although we made no recommendations as they had already taken action on Ms C's concerns, we did suggest that they write again, apologising for the failure in customer service. Related reading View Decision Report 201406167 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's handling of statutory repairs notices that had been served on their property. They complained that the council had failed to follow their own internal processes when awarding the contract for the statutory repairs, and to follow their procedures for checking that the work carried out was correctly invoiced. Mr and Mrs C said that the final account included items that had not been completed, unnecessary work, duplicate items and items not related to any statutory notice. Finally, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response to their complaint about the issue of an emergency notice. During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had responded to Mr and Mrs C's concerns and had explained that they were satisfied that the tendering process was in line with approved procurement procedures. We also found that they had fully considered Mr and Mrs C's concerns about the final account. Having thoroughly investigated the works carried out, they were satisfied that the project was competitively tendered, the costs were reasonable and the statutory notices were issued appropriately. Finally, we found that, based on the available evidence, the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations about the issue of a statutory notice. In particular, they had explained that the decision to issue this was based on the professional judgement of the surveyor at the time of issue in 2008. Related reading View Decision Report 201205171 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council had failed to act on her reports of repairs required to her home. During our investigation, we found that there had been a breakdown in communication which had resulted in repairs she had reported not being attended to. The council apologised sincerely to Ms C and made arrangements to carry out all the outstanding matters. Ms C confirmed to us that the council were taking action to resolve her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406161 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The property where Mrs C lives was subject to a statutory repairs notice which meant that the council did the works by default and then recouped the cost (plus an administration fee) from the owners. Mrs C complained about the final costs of the works and said that the owners had not been kept informed or up to date about increasing costs. We found that, upon starting work as required by the notice, the extent of damage caused by vegetation was greater than first considered (affecting the gable as well as the chimney stack of the property). While Mrs C was alerted to the fact that this would lead to an increase in costs, she was not given details of the costs incurred nor reasons why the council thought it was appropriate to continue with the works under the existing notice rather than issuing another. Accordingly, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the council did not follow their procedures when dealing with her concerns that her child was being bullied at school. She also complained about how the council dealt with her complaint. The law describes the types of complaints we can and cannot look at, and what we can and cannot do about them. It says that we cannot look into conduct or discipline matters in schools, so we could not investigate the allegations of bullying or reach a view on whether Miss C was bullied. It is important to note that although Mrs C was certain her child was being bullied, the school did not agree. We looked into the school records and found that although Mrs C was not satisfied with the outcome, her concerns were taken seriously. In keeping with their procedures the school made reports of alleged bullying incidents, records of meetings they had with Mrs C, and action plans to support the child at school. Mrs C also felt that the council's response to her complaint was factually inaccurate. We found, however, that it was an accurate reflection of the school's records, and their letter to Mrs C was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201401678 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a development in his area. He was concerned about the council planning and transportation officers' relationship with the developer and their agent, and believed that officers had acted inappropriately by advising the developer/agent how to circumvent the local plan for the area. Mr C said the planning department had misinterpreted Scottish Government guidance on whether a transport assessment was required for the development and that the planning and transportation departments colluded with a developer's agent to avoid a full traffic assessment. We obtained independent advice on the case from a planning adviser. Our adviser said that Scottish Government guidance and planning policy made it clear that pre-application discussions between a developer and a council were actively encouraged, and were viewed as adding value at the start of the development management process. The fact that pre-application discussions took place between the developer's agent and the council in this case was, therefore, entirely reasonable. We found no evidence of the planning department using inappropriate language in communications with the developer or that they became too friendly with the developer or their agent. Not did we find any evidence that the department exceeded their remit in the advice they provided on the local plan. To ensure transparency in the planning process, however, we considered that meetings with developers, including welcome meetings, should be minuted. We found that, on balance, the transport department did not collude with the developer's representative to avoid a traffic impact assessment. In terms of the requirement for a transport assessment, we concluded that the interpretation of planning guidance was a matter of professional judgment for the council as planning authority. However, before exercising that judgement, the planning committee should have had full information to en

Mr C complained that the council had not made reasonable efforts to investigate a noise nuisance he reported. We found that the council had made frequent visits to Mr C's property to assess the noise but there were no breaches of relevant noise levels. There was no further action they could take and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402199 as a PDF (10.73 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably demanded payment for works carried out under a statutory notice, without providing an invoice with a detailed breakdown of the costs. He was dissatisfied with the information they provided, and said that they were legally required to provide a detailed invoice, which they had failed to do. Our investigation found that the council had followed their usual practice when issuing the invoice. Although Mr C considered that they had not met the requirements on the detail that should be provided, they had clearly responded when he requested more information. As we found nothing wrong in their handling of the matter, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402073 as a PDF (10.9 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council had charged her client (Ms A) rent for a property that was uninhabitable. After taking on a new tenancy, Ms A had complained to the council that she had been unable to live in the property since the tenancy commenced due to water ingress and dampness. The council agreed to decant her to another property. The council investigated Ms A's complaint and agreed to a rent abatement (refund on rent due), but Ms A was unhappy that the refund was not backdated to when she said she was unable to live in the property, which was a few months before she contacted the council about this matter. When the council agreed to decant Ms A, they did not charge rent at the decant property which meant that Ms A could not claim housing benefit that she said she was due. We considered the correspondence with the council, records of payments and the tenancy agreement as well as the council's guidance notes for rent abatement and decant procedures. We found that the council had followed their procedures and had reasonably awarded a rent abatement from when they were informed by Ms A that she was not able to live in the property until she moved into decant property which later became her permanent residency. The council also had acted within their guidelines regarding charging Ms A for the original property and not the decant and that she had been paid housing benefit due to her in line with housing benefit regulations. We did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201401965 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council seized his vehicle from his private land many years ago and arranged for it to be destroyed. He said he reported the theft of the vehicle to the police at the time but that he only recently learned, through contact with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), that the council had removed it. He raised concerns that they had acted illegally in doing so. The council told Mr C that they no longer held records of events dating that far back. They confirmed this to us, advising that they only retain records for six years. We asked Mr C to provide a copy of the information from the DVLA but he did not do so. In the circumstances, we were unable to evidence what happened to Mr C's vehicle. We noted that, under the terms of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, the council have legal powers to remove vehicles from private land if they are considered to have been abandoned. They are required to take certain steps before doing so. However, as we were unable to see what, if any, actions they took in this case we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201401077 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C made a claim to the council for damage from a road accident caused by a pothole, saying that they had not maintained the road in line with their procedures. The council refused his claim, as they said they had complied with their procedures for inspecting the road, and repaired the pothole within the required time-frame. They also said the pothole was less than the minimum depth required for them to be liable for the accident. Mr C disagreed with several of these findings, and complained to the council that they had not handled his claim reasonably. They apologised for delays in responding, but did not agree that they had relied on inaccurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained to us about their handling of his claim and complaint. We found that the council had used inaccurate information when determining his claim, as they had used inspection dates for the wrong route and had relied on a measurement that they acknowledged was probably an estimate rather than an actual measurement. Although Mr C had video evidence of the pothole depth, which he offered to share, the council had not taken account of this. We also found that they failed to deal with his complaints reasonably, as they did not acknowledge or respond within the required time-frames, and did not consider all the available evidence. When Mr C complained that the information was inaccurate, the council double-checked the accident inspection report they had relied on, but did not compare this to documents that would have shown that the information was inaccurate.

Ms C, who is an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the way staff at a council-run community centre (the centre) communicated with her; that they had allowed photographs to be taken of her children against her wishes; failed to properly investigate an allegation that a staff member had referred in an offensive way to one of her children; and unreasonably failed to allow one of her children to go on a trip. Ms A complained that staff at the centre did not provide her with information about events in the accessible format she had requested. Our investigation found that the council had acknowledged that there had been some inconsistency in providing information to Ms A in the format she had requested. Action was taken by the council to ensure that all communication was appropriate to Ms A's needs and, as this action had been taken, the council did not uphold Ms A's complaint on this issue. We considered that the action taken by the council had been reasonable and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint about this. In relation to photographs taken of Ms A's children during a trip, Ms A had completed a form specifically refusing permission for her children to be photographed. The council acknowledged their error and apologised for this. As a result of Ms A's complaint, the council arranged staff training and also arranged for the deletion of the photographs in the presence of Ms A and her advocate. We considered that this was reasonable. In relation to Ms C's other complaints about allegations of an offensive term being used towards her child, and her child's exclusion from a trip, we found that neither of these complaints could be substantiated with evidence, so we did not uphold these complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201302576 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C objected to their next-door neighbour's planning application for an extension. The council granted the application, and Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the application process had been handled unfairly. They raised a number of concerns, including that some information on the application was inaccurate and/or provided after the deadline for comments; that the council had not responded to their correspondence asking questions about the planning application process; that the application had been decided by an officer using delegated powers, when it should have been decided by a committee; and that the officer had failed to take relevant planning considerations and guidelines into account in deciding the application. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we upheld one of Mr and Mrs C's complaints - that the council failed to respond to their correspondence asking questions about the planning process. We found that, although the council upheld the complaint about this, they had not apologised or made any recommendations to improve their practices, and we were critical of this failure to learn from what had happened. We did not uphold the other complaints, as there was no evidence that the council had failed to comply with relevant procedures in allowing additional information to be provided after the deadline for comments, or in deciding the application using delegated powers. While there were minor inaccuracies in the plans the council used, we found that it was reasonable for them to rely on these as the inaccuracies were not so significant that they would affect the decision. The officer had also undertaken a site visit and taken photos to ensure they had accurate information about the site and its surroundings. We also found evidence that the council had taken all of the relevant planning considerations and guidelines into account.

Mr and Mrs C made several complaints to the council about the way their child, who has autism, was dealt with at school, in particular where physical intervention had been used. The council investigated and fully or partially upheld many of their complaints. Mr and Mrs C were not, however, satisfied with how the investigation was conducted or the outcome. They complained to us about the investigation and the remedial action taken by the council as a result of the complaints. Our investigation found that the handling of their complaints was unsatisfactory, in that the council should have taken control more promptly, there were matters that could have been agreed and investigated (as outlined in the council's complaints procedure) at a much earlier stage, and it appeared that the council took no action on the complaints during a period of some eight months. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint, noting that much of the delay was due to the complexity of the issues involved, the large volume of documents that needed to be reviewed and the fact that additional complaints were added during the process. We also noted that it was originally agreed that an internal investigation would take place as an initial fact-finding exercise, followed by an external investigation. However, after some 250 hours of work, the internal investigation had identified failings in several areas and the majority of Mr and Mrs C's complaints had been either fully or partially upheld. The council, therefore, decided to concentrate on addressing the issues this raised, rather than expending further resources on an additional external investigation. Our view was that this decision was reasonable and proportionate, although it was obviously disappointing for Mr and Mrs C. On the issue of the remedial action, Mr and Mrs C complained that they had only been provided with a copy of an action plan. Our investigation found, however, that they had been kept updated on the progress of the plan through

Mr C was unhappy about a statutory notice that was served on his property. He was unhappy with the explanations given, the documents received and the charges applied. The council said that they had given reasonable explanations, had provided the necessary documents and charged Mr C appropriately. Mr C disagreed, saying that he should have had this information earlier. We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether he was appropriately billed as that was a matter for the council - we would only look at how they explained their decisions. Our investigation considered how and when the explanations were given. We found that the council had explained the reasoning for the statutory notice early in the process, provided the documentation requested, apologised for a delay in complaints handling, and added levies and charges in line with council policy. This meant that the council had done as they should have and had handled this reasonably, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201400641 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was given notice to quit his rented accommodation, so he contacted the council about alternative housing. They assessed him as being involuntarily homeless. Mr C told the council that he had health issues that meant his accommodation needed certain kinds of fixtures and furnishings and that he could not share accommodation. The council, however, told him that they required a medical opinion supporting this before they would offer him only accommodation meeting these criteria. Mr C was offered various properties over the following twelve months before he accepted a temporary accommodation and, soon after, a permanent accommodation. He complained to the council that the accommodation he had been offered was unreasonable given his health issues. The council responded that they had not received any medical opinion that indicated the offers had been unreasonable. Mr C brought his complaints to us. We found that Mr C had not supplied the council with any medical evidence that supported his views about what sort of accommodation was suitable. Given this, we decided that the council's offers were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaints. However, we did note that the council had not responded to a complaint specifically about the temporary accommodation even though they had considered and investigated it, and we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C complained that the council took enforcement action against him in respect of two property developments. He said that they acted outwith their powers, and were vindictive and biased in their treatment of his developments and complaints. The council said that, as Mr C had not complied with the planning permissions granted for the two properties, they had taken reasonable actions in enforcing those permissions. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. The adviser said that the council, having identified that the properties did not conform to the planning permissions granted, had all the relevant powers to take enforcement action. We also found there was no evidence that the council had been vindictive or biased towards Mr C in considering planning permissions about his properties or the handling of his complaint. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201205007 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out repairs to prevent water coming into Mr A's council house. Ms C said that Mr A contacted the council many times about this and the council had failed to permanently resolve the situation. Our investigation considered the council's policy on water ingress and whether they followed it. The policy said that for top floor flats such as Mr A's they would arrange a temporary roof repair to ensure the home was wind and watertight. The council indicated that, in such cases, temporary repairs should be carried out within one day. The evidence showed that on eight separate occasions the council were advised of water ingress problems at Mr A's property. On two of these, they arranged repairs in accordance with their policy. However, on the remaining six, the evidence suggested that no temporary repairs were completed. We acknowledged that, during that time, the council organised more permanent repairs for the roof, but this did not remove the requirement for them to carry out temporary repairs to make Mr A's home watertight. Given the number of times Mr A reported the same issues, we also found that the council failed to identify the problem and to take appropriate action earlier. We were also concerned that in their response to Ms C's complaint the council said they were not aware of a recent problem, when their records clearly showed that this had been reported to them no fewer than seven times. We were, therefore, critical of the council's failure to investigate Ms C's complaint properly.