SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained that the council failed to deal reasonably with her planning application for a new driveway and her application for dropped kerb access. The council said that they had explained to Ms C what her rights were in respect of parking, and had clearly told her what she needed to do to obtain these permissions. They said that they worked with her at all stages to try and assist her through this process. We found that the council had had a great deal of contact with Ms C and had provided her with clear advice on what she would have to do to get consent. As we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201301560 as a PDF (10.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C is the secretary of a group that used a local community facility. The council decided to use some of the space there for their staff and sought a principal tenant for the remaining space. It was planned that the tenant would manage the use of the community space to ensure that other local groups could continue to use it. Mrs C told us that the council had not consulted appropriately and so had failed to involve the local community and tell them about decisions on the future management of the facility. She also complained that the council had not made the local community aware of the process to become the principal tenant. During our investigation, we found that the council had considered carrying out a consultation and had decided it was unnecessary. We found that there were no policies or procedures that they were expected to follow for this, and that they were entitled to use their judgment to make the decision. We noted that they had developed a new framework for staff to help them with consultations, including deciding when to consult. Although we did not uphold the complaints, we were critical that the council did not erect a To Let sign at the facility. We also considered that the property marketing material could have been sent to respondents of a previous community engagement exercise but, overall, we were satisfied that the council acted reasonably.

Mr C arranged to have work done to his driveway, which also affected the pavement outside his property. He had contacted the council in September 2011, who wrote back with an informal opinion that the work would be classed as permitted development (meaning that planning permission would not be necessary). However, they went on to explain that if Mr C wanted formal confirmation that it was permitted development, he would have to apply for a certificate of lawfulness. They also explained that he would have to apply for this in any event if the work required a separate type of permit because it affected the public road, which it did. Around two years later, Mr C wanted to go ahead with the work and was unhappy when he learned that a certificate of lawfulness would be required, as he felt that the council’s letter meant this was not the case. He was also unhappy at the level of detail the council wanted him to send them and complained that they had not properly investigated his complaint about the way a council employee spoke to his wife. After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser explained that the council's requirement for a certificate of lawfulness was common practice in most local authorities. He did not consider the council had acted unreasonably, and indicated that the level of detail the council requested was in keeping with what they reasonably required under planning legislation. Although we considered their letter of September 2011 could have perhaps explained the position more clearly, the evidence indicated that there had been no maladministration. In terms of the council’s investigation into their employee’s conduct at Mr C’s property, we considered that they could have done little more to investigate this, beyond interviewing Mr C's wife (and possibly the contractor who was on site). We recognised that this had been a long-running stressful matter for Mr C and his wife, but we consi

Mr C holds a licence issued by the council, and was interviewed after a complaint was made against him as a licence-holder. He complained to the council that he had not been told what his rights were at the interview and asked that they tell him what these were. At the end of their complaints procedure, he remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We found that the interview was not a hearing to determine Mr C's civil rights and so there was no requirement to advise him of his rights at that point. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to his other complaint, we found that the council had, in correspondence, advised Mr C of what his rights had been and so we did not uphold that complaint either. Related reading View Decision Report 201400681 as a PDF (10.9 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

In 2012, the council sent Mr C a cheque with a refund of overpaid council tax. In 2013 he asked them to issue a new cheque, saying that the original was out-of-date and the bank would not accept it. Mr C said his local office advised him to send this back to a named officer in the council's Revenues and Benefits Division, which he said he did. The council investigated what had happened, but told Mr C they would not issue a new cheque because the original had already been paid into his bank. He disputed this and complained to us that the council had failed to investigate his complaint about it. Our investigation found evidence confirming that the cheque had been deposited in Mr C's account. We also noted that they said he had not sent them back a cheque but a remittance advice slip. However, we upheld his complaint because we found that the council did not deal with it well, and that he had been put to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing it. His complaint was subject to delay, confusion, poor record-keeping, and a failure to recognise that his correspondence was a complaint and to deal with it in good time.

Mr C owns a flat, which he rents out. In 2009, the council served two statutory notices for repairs to the roof, slates, stonework, a chimney stack and the gutter and to clear rhones and downpipes. This was completed by August 2010, but an emergency statutory notice was served during the defect liability period (the period allowed after completion of repairs for any defects to be identified) to clear choked drains. Leaks to the gutters/pipes needed attention at the end of this time, and work was completed by a different contractor. Mr C then complained to us that the council had refused to accept that internal damage in his property was due to the statutory notice works being defective. Our investigation found that although work had been undertaken after the contract was completed, there was no evidence to substantiate Mr C's claim that the damage was a result of the contractor not carrying out the repairs properly. The council explained that the problem of water ingress, which Mr C said had caused the internal damage in his flat, had been happening for a long time due to a water-damaged wall, and it appeared from the evidence that drains becoming blocked was a regular occurrence. Related reading View Decision Report 201306203 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy about the cost of repairs carried out to his communal roof under a statutory repair notice. He said that the final invoice was considerably higher than the original quote, and he had not received a satisfactory explanation as to why that was the case. We found, however, that the council had explained on more than one occasion, and in considerable detail, why the final invoice was higher. They had also apologised for failing to keep owners informed of the increasing costs while the work was being carried out. We did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305336 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who was acting for a member of his family. We took independent advice on this complaint from a social work adviser. The code of practice for local authorities exercising functions under the Adults with Incapacity Act (Scotland) 2000 sets out how a local authority should investigate a complaint about a welfare power of attorney. We found that the council's investigation was not carried out in accordance with the guidance in that code. There was no evidence that they had obtained relevant information and the views of other interested parties before completing their investigation, or that they had asked to see the welfare power of attorney's records. The council had also received advice that there was no requirement for a welfare power of attorney to abide by the code of practice for continuing and welfare attorneys, and in view of this, they had not assessed the person's actions against this code. We did not consider that it was reasonable for them to disregard the code on this basis, as it sets out good practice, interpretation of the relevant legislation and a standard against which to assess the actions and suitability of an attorney. There was also no evidence that they then used anything else against which to assess the actions of the person Mr C had complained about, and we upheld his complaint about their investigation. We also found that the council delayed in responding to his complaints about their investigation and upheld his complaint about this too.

Mr C complained that, after he ended his tenancy, the council unreasonably invoiced him for works they carried out to his council house. He explained that while he was still a tenant he had tried to contact the council, in writing and by phone, asking for permission to make alterations and improvements to his home. As he did not hear from them to the contrary, he had gone ahead with the work. The council explained that they had no record of Mr C's attempts to contact them. They said that they had to carry out substantial repairs and alterations to return the house to a condition where they could re-let it, and they provided us with details of all the work that was done. They also explained that the tenancy agreement specified that if works were carried out without permission, the council were entitled to reclaim (from the tenant who carried them out) the cost of returning the property to an acceptable letting standard. We reviewed the information from both Mr C and the council, and could find no evidence to show that he had tried to get permission. As the council clearly did not give their permission, and as in those circumstances the tenancy agreement entitled them to recover the costs, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305642 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to maintain an area of the road near his property. He also complained that a nearby sewer was deteriorating, meaning that it was potentially dangerous for people using the area. Mr C brought his complaint to us as he said the council had not addressed either issue, although he had been in correspondence with them for some time. We reviewed the correspondence and found that the council had explained to Mr C that it was unclear whether they had adopted that part of the road or whether it remained a nearby housing association's responsibility. They said that their solicitors were working to clarify this and provided details of another nearby area where they were carrying out maintenance work, to try to reassure Mr C that they maintained areas for which they were responsible. They also explained that they would write to the housing association and Scottish Water about the sewer, although they explained that it was not the council's responsibility to maintain it. We reviewed the correspondence and found no evidence to indicate any underlying administrative failure by the council. We did, however, consider that there had been shortcomings in the correspondence, which had caused confusion as to how matters were being progressed and so, while we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation.

Mr C complained about the council's assessment of a planning application for the construction of a dormer window and roof-light in a neighbouring house in a conservation area. He said that they had not properly assessed the application against the relevant planning policies, local development plan and the area conservation appraisal. The council responded to the complaint by acknowledging that the case officer's report did not fully detail the consideration of the application, and made it difficult to understand the council's decision-making. However, they had reviewed the way the application was considered and concluded that the decision was appropriate. We took independent advice on this from one of our planning advisers, considered the relevant case files and reviewed the planning application and relevant planning policies. From our review we were satisfied that the application had been properly considered, taking into account the conservation status of the area and the relevant local conservation appraisal document, local development plan and planning policy. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the application was considered, and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304802 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a property in a building where the council administer a tenement management scheme (TMS). He was unhappy about the way in which the council billed him for various emergency works there. He also said that there was a delay in issuing invoices, the council did not ensure that invoices and final notices were printed and delivered in a timely manner, and that an incorrect date of payment received was referred to in responses to his complaint. We made enquiries of the council, and received their comments and relevant paperwork. They accepted that there was an unreasonable delay in issuing the invoices, and we found that they did not appear to have told Mr C or other residents about their normal practice in dealing with these. We upheld this element of his complaint, as well as the incorrect date of payment being shown, which the council also acknowledged. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the printing and issuing of invoices and final notices, we saw no evidence that the delay was caused by the council's mail processing, and so we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

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.

Mr C was concerned about the development of a piece of land near his home. The council had given planning permission for development of the site, with certain conditions attached. Just before the time limit on this consent expired, some work was carried out on the site, after which the council confirmed that the developer had discharged their responsibilities under the planning conditions. Mr C complained to the council that this decision was unreasonable, and that they had not made relevant documents available to the public as required by legislation. The council responded to Mr C's complaints, but he remained dissatisfied and complained to us. Our investigation found that the council had acted in line with legislation and procedure in deciding whether the conditions had been discharged. They had not, however, made all relevant documents available as they should have done so we upheld that element of the complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints, but we decided this had been reasonable.

Mr C told us that he had received a bill from the council for repair work on his tenement, carried out under an emergency statutory notice that the council had issued. He said that this was the first communication he had received about this, and that there was a four and a half year gap between the work being undertaken and when he and other owners were told about the cost. He said that neither he nor his neighbours were notified by statutory notice that work was to be carried out. He also said that when he first raised concerns about this and queried his share of the costs, the council told him that this would be investigated and that they would put the demand for payment on hold until this was done. However, during their investigations he was sent letters demanding payment. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which the council investigated his complaint. When we investigated this, the council acknowledged that there was no evidence that they had issued a statutory notice to Mr C. They also explained why the invoice for the completed work was not issued earlier, and we noted that they had already apologised to Mr C for this. We upheld Mr C's complaints about the failure to issue the statutory notice and about the demand for payment, and made a recommendation. As, however, we found that the council's investigation into the costs had been appropriate, we did not uphold that complaint.

In 2002, Mr and Mrs C purchased a flat in Edinburgh. The flat was the subject of a statutory repairs notice the following year, but Mr and Mrs C said that they were unaware of this as the council had not served the notice on them, but on the previous owner. They told us that they had seen scaffolding go up on part of the property, but the first they knew about repairs being undertaken under a statutory notice was when they received a bill for their share of the costs in 2013. Mr and Mrs C questioned the delay in issuing the invoice, and the costs. They complained that the council had failed to conduct conservation works on their property in such a way that they could evidence that their invoice was justified, and that the council did not handle their complaint in accordance with the complaints procedure. Our investigation found that, although there was a long delay between the work starting and the issue of the invoice, there was evidence that the council sent notices about this to Mr and Mrs C's property. These were addressed to the owner or occupier, even if they were not then passed to Mr and Mrs C. Although this was unfortunate, we took into account that Mr and Mrs C were aware that there was scaffolding on the building, and we considered that it would have been reasonable for them to have asked neighbours and/or the council about this. Although Mr and Mrs C thought the documentation was inadequate, the council had provided them with the final account, detailing the works. We did not uphold their complaint, as we concluded that, whilst the documentation was sparse, Mr and Mrs C's complaint came down to a dispute about their liability for their share of the costs, and we were not able to adjudicate on this. Where we had found fault was not with the contract, but with the delay in issuing the account. The council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this, and we decided that it would not be reasonable to ask for a reduction in the invoice, as Mr and Mrs C'

Mrs C had made an insurance claim against the council following work carried out as part of a flood prevention scheme. Although her claim now appeared to be in the process of being properly addressed, she was unhappy about how her complaint about the delays in doing so had been handled. She complained to us about this, explaining in detail the ways in which she said the council had failed to deal with the complaint properly. We upheld Mrs C's complaint, as our investigation found that the council had handled her concerns poorly. We found evidence of failures to honour commitments and assurances they had given, over-reliance on standard acknowledgements of emails, timescales that were largely meaningless, and a failure to properly investigate and respond to the handling issues and complaints which Mrs C had very clearly set out. The council also failed to discuss Mrs C's complaint with her, and in their correspondence they failed to address, or respond to, the complaints handling issues she had raised. They also did not give her the 'upheld' outcome that she deserved based on the evidence that should have been available to them, had they looked at her complaint properly. Despite acknowledging to Mrs C that there appeared to be a need to review their administrative procedures, the council's response to our enquiries did not say if any review has taken place, or if a review was planned. We made a recommendation specifically about this, relating it to the model complaints handling procedure (CHP) provided for local government by our Complaints Standards Authority.

Mr C, who is a landlord, said that he told the council in March 2012 that his tenant, who was in receipt of housing benefit, had not paid his rent and asked them to intervene in this. He complained that the council failed to take action, and did not deal properly with his correspondence and complaints. We did not uphold his complaint that the council failed to act in March 2012, as Mr C was unable to provide us with any evidence that he had been in touch with them about this then. The first evidence of contact was in June 2012, when he sent them an email about it. The council said that this was when he first brought the issue to their attention. Despite extensive enquiries, we did not find any documentary evidence that Mr C contacted the council earlier than this, so we were unable to conclude that they failed to take appropriate action. We did, however, uphold his complaint about correspondence and complaints handling. The evidence showed that Mr C contacted the council on numerous occasions over an 11-month period with his concerns about his tenant and communicated with various teams in the revenue and benefits department. In general, the council did respond to his communications. However, we were critical of them for failing to confirm their understanding of his concerns with him at an early stage and for failing to explain the services the different parts of the council could provide. They also did not advise Mr C of the outcome of their initial investigation when he asked that they start to make housing benefit payments directly to him, as landlord, and of any right of appeal against this decision. Mr C's first formal complaint was not considered appropriately under the council's complaints procedure and he was not advised how to escalate his complaint. There was also an unreasonable delay of two months in responding to a letter from Mr C's MSP and the council did not send updates or explain the delay.

Mr C's late aunt (Ms A) had been in hospital following a stroke, and was discharged to a nursing home. Mr C complained that council social workers did not give Ms A the chance to visit the nursing home before sending her there (even though the manager had offered to let her visit), and did not offer her a choice of homes. He also said that the council failed to obtain the views of or inform Ms A's advocate and her family. We do not normally investigate complaints about the actions of social workers, as these are normally considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), who have greater powers than we do to question the decisions of social workers. In this case, however, the council had decided that the complaint could not be considered by a CRC, so we investigated the actions of the social workers. In doing so, we took independent advice from a social work adviser with significant experience in older people’s services. Ms A was considered to lack the capacity to make her own decisions. However, the council's assessment of her said that she had a little insight and would be pleased to be helped to seek a good nursing home placement. Despite this, Ms A was then discharged to a nursing home that she had not seen. The council told us this was because hospital staff had said that a visit to another home had unsettled her. However, there was no evidence that, before Ms A was discharged, social workers had assessed her needs, taken into account her wishes, or gathered information from a range of sources, including her independent advocate. This amounted to a failure to obtain and consider material and important information. We took the view that, at the very least, social work staff should have recorded why they felt that the views and interests of hospital staff should take precedence over those of Ms A. We would have expected the records to show why the potential upset of a visit was felt to be more significant than that of having to move to a home that she h

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh, on which work was done under a statutory notice issued by the council. She complained to the council that they had not told her how her complaint about the management of this work would be reviewed. She then complained about this to us, saying that the council's review of her complaint did not look into her concerns fully. When we investigated the complaint, we found a gap in the council's record-keeping because they did not provide us with some relevant correspondence between Ms C and their property conservation section. We also found that they had not told her how the review process would be conducted, because they had not sent the letter containing the advice about this to her home address. The council acknowledged that Ms C had not been provided with assurances that, despite a backlog in the handling of complaints about statutory notice cases, her case was being reviewed through an approved process. We also found that email correspondence from Ms C to the council about her concerns over the contract of works was not included in the documents that formed part of the review. However, we found evidence that the review did consider the management of the repairs and her concerns were, therefore, covered in it.

Ms C complained that the council failed to respond to her complaint that council staff refused to provide receipts when she hand delivered letters to the reception desk at council offices. She told us that she had explained to the council that she did not use email and found it impractical to use registered post, but had experienced situations where council officials had denied receiving correspondence, or important documents had gone astray. She said that she had been told by council staff that the council do not provide receipts. Our investigation found that the council do not have a policy or process for providing receipts where mail has been hand delivered, but were considering this as part of an ongoing internal review of their practices, which we considered helpful. We said we would ask the council to let us know the outcome of this. However, they were unable to explain why Ms C’s complaint about the matter was not dealt with under their complaints procedure, so we upheld that element of the complaint and made recommendations.