SPSO Individual Decisions

Some years ago, a developer submitted a planning application to build a block of flats behind Mr C's home. The application included a plan showing an intention for plants to be used as a screen at the boundary between the flats and Mr C's property. During the application process, the council's development quality sub-committee carried out a site visit and issued a report requiring that a condition be included in any planning consent, requiring formal approval of landscaping plans with particular regard to screening at that boundary. Mr C complained on behalf of a number of local residents that existing plants were removed from there, and no screening was introduced. He said that the council had not enforced the planning condition. We took independent advice on the complaint from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the planning department approved the application and the associated landscaping plans, and had the appropriate delegated authority to do so. Revised landscaping plans were submitted that did not include screening at that boundary. As there was no specific planning need for this (daylight and privacy requirements had been comfortably met), and a strip of land to the east of the development was required for access to a gas main, the planning department approved the revised plans. It was clear from the evidence submitted to us that the sub-committee were strongly of the view that screen planting should be used between the development and existing properties. Although we acknowledged that the final position taken by the planning department was reasonable, we were concerned that the planning department acted without taking account of the fact that the submitted landscaping plans were clearly at odds to those originally submitted and the intentions of the sub-committee. In response to our enquiries, the council had told us that the condition proposed by the sub-committee was unenforceable and did not meet the basic standards for p

Mr C is the non-resident owner of a flat in a block where the council also owned a flat. When Mr C bought his flat in 2006, he was aware that the council wanted to carry out repairs to the building. While Mr C agreed, the other private owners did not, and only an emergency repair was undertaken. When the council tenant then found dampness in their flat, the council inspected the block and, given the lack of previous consensus on the subject of repairs, issued a statutory repairs notice. The database they used for notifying owners was not, however, updated and so Mr C and another non-resident flat owner did not receive letters about this, either from the council or from their contract administrators. Mr C eventually became aware of the notice some two years after it was issued, and paid his share of the costs. More recently, however, after media reports alerted Mr C to concerns about the administration of statutory notice contracts, he complained. Mr C received a final reply from a senior official some months later. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about his requests for information about why the block of flats was selected for a statutory notice and the choice of contractor or about additional works undertaken, as we did not find that anything had gone wrong in this. We did, however, find that the council did not fully consider his complaint and review his case, as they had linked it to a similar complaint from another owner, and had not considered all the issues Mr C had raised.

Mr C complained that the council did not provide him with a reasonable standard of customer service when they failed to respond to his request for a copy of his marriage certificate in a reasonable timescale or, on two separate occasions, pay the postage on mail they sent to him. Mr C told us that the outcome he was seeking from pursuing his complaint was payment of his expenses. When we raised Mr C’s complaint with the council, they apologised for the unfortunate series of events that had resulted in Mr C’s request not being dealt with properly, and failure to pay postage. To resolve the complaint, the council told us that the mail service was being reviewed as part of their service improvement programme. They also explained that staff had been reminded of the importance of ensuring that all items were appropriately stamped. As a remedy, the council offered a payment partly to cover his expenses and partly as a goodwill gesture. Mr C was satisfied with this, and we did not issue a decision on the case as it was resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201303068 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Ms C were unhappy with the council's handling of their complaints. After we contacted the council about this, the council decided that Mr and Ms C's complaints should be upheld and the second stage of their complaints process repeated. As Mr and Ms C were satisfied with this outcome, we did not take the matter further. Related reading View Decision Report 201304037 as a PDF (10.69 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council’s revision of his council tax liability on his former shared property and was unhappy that they were pursuing him for this. He said he had not received an adequate explanation of the amount owed or an adequate response to his complaints. Mr C initially visited the council's office for an explanation and, when he did not receive a satisfactory response, he wrote to the council twice. He did not receive a response to either letter and so he submitted a complaint. In responding to the complaint, the council apologised to Mr C for not responding to his letters and for the fact he was not able to obtain an explanation when he visited their office. They said they would raise this with the office manager. The council went on to provide Mr C with what we considered to be a clear explanation of the amount owed. They provided a detailed breakdown of his account and explained why they were obliged to pursue both Mr C and his former flatmate for the debt. As they appeared to have managed Mr C's account in line with the relevant rules and procedures, and as we saw no evidence that he had been charged an incorrect level of council tax, we did not uphold this element of his complaint. As the council had not provided an explanation when Mr C first contacted them, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. However, as they had already acknowledged their failings, apologised to Mr C, and taken steps to try to prevent a repeat occurrence, as well as offering a clear explanation of the outstanding balance, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201302838 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a flat which he rents out. The flat is in a tenement that was the subject of a statutory notice in respect of roof repairs, served on owners in February 2007 under the provisions of The City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. In May 2008, owners were told that in the absence of any agreement by owners to undertake the necessary works, the council had appointed a firm of surveyors to administer these. In October 2009 the surveyors told owners that the contract had been awarded, and told them the estimated costs, start date and duration. The works were carried out by October 2010. During the contract, the surveyors made regular site visits, paid out progressive instalments of the contract fee and sent a number of update newsletters to owners. Accounts for the share of the costs were sent to owners in December 2012. Mr C had not received any of the previous correspondence, and said that he only became aware of the works when his tenant forwarded the invoice. He made information requests to the council, and complained to them. He then complained to us that the council failed to take reasonable steps to notify him of the statutory notice served on his property, and to demonstrate that they followed their own procedures when evaluating and controlling the works. Our investigation found that the council and their agents had sent the relevant letters to Mr C's flat to let him know about the works, as they had no alternative address for him. They had also responded to Mr C’s requests for information. Although he was not satisfied, the evidence we saw demonstrated that the surveyors administering the contract on behalf of the council had properly controlled and evaluated work through regular site visits, and had sought to keep all owners updated. In the light of these findings, we did not uphold the complaint as the council's actions, and those of the surveyors acting on their behalf, were reasonable. As, however, we have commente

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to remove loose render (a covering of plaster or cement) from the outside of his property without first discussing this with other property owners. He complained that this caused additional damage to the render, cost more than was reasonable and that the council failed to carry out repairs. The council had explained to Mr C that they received a report from an occupier (who happened to be a council tenant) of render falling from the top flat onto the gardens below. They inspected the site and determined, for safety reasons, that they needed to use their statutory powers to issue an emergency statutory notice and instruct a contractor to make the site safe. The contractor did so by removing patches of loose render. Whilst they acknowledged Mr C's concerns about the amount of render removed, they explained that their contractor had only removed the render he considered unsafe. Our investigation reviewed the council's actions and found that they had acted appropriately, and in line with their statutory duties when addressing this issue. Related reading View Decision Report 201301617 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C and her sister complained to the council about the care of their late mother (Mrs A). They said that when their mother was discharged from hospital a social worker had unreasonably placed her in a locked dementia ward rather than in a unit for frail elderly people. Their distress was compounded when Mrs A was assaulted by other residents. Mrs C then complained to us about the way the council had handled their complaint, as she said that information about the assaults her mother had been subjected to had been withheld from a committee. We did not uphold the complaint about information, as our investigation found that the committee had access to all the complaints papers including evidence of the assaults that the council accepted that Mrs A had suffered. However, we did find that there had been unreasonable delay in the handling of Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300585 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the council about a statutory notice that had been served on his property, and for which the council had told him he was now liable. He was unhappy at having to pay as he said he and his solicitors had tried to find out more from the council about this, both before he bought the property and since, without success. He had a lot of communication with the council about this, and was also unhappy with the advice they gave to solicitors acting on his behalf and how they handled his complaint. He was dissatisfied with the council's responses and complained to us. We found that the council's responses did not reasonably address his complaints, that their responses to his enquiries about the matter had been unreasonable, and they did not make clear what an apology they provided was related to. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Mr C, who has a disability, complained about the council's handling of his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. In particular, he complained that the items he had requested should have been identified as high priority and that the decision-making in his case was wrong. Our investigation considered the Scottish Government’s guidance setting out the process for councils to follow. In Mr C's case, the council had explained to him that they had refused his application because they considered that, based on the information he had provided, there was not a risk of him going into care if the grant was refused. Mr C appealed against this but the council confirmed their decision. Mr C then requested a further review of the decision (second tier review), and it was considered by a panel of people of who did not work for the Scottish Welfare Fund team. After the second tier review, the council decided, as there was new medical information, to award him a grant for one of the items he had requested. We noted that the explanations given by the council for their decision could have been better, but we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300769 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a landlord, complained that the council delayed in processing housing benefit applications for two of his tenants. As a result of this delay, and in particular their request to pay their rent direct to their landlord, Mr C said that the tenants gave up the lease. He also complained that, although the council had discretion to pay a landlord direct, they were failing to exercise this. Our investigation established that the council had failed to correctly process the benefit claims. The council said that this was not due to a process failure, but provided no evidence to confirm that the handling of the applications followed a set practice or procedure. We did not find that the council had failed to pay rent directly to Mr C, as he had received payment, but we made recommendations for process improvements. Mr C's complaint that the council had unreasonably delayed in making payment to the tenants was borne out by the evidence. The legislation for payment of housing benefit requires the first payment to be made within 14 days of receipt of the claim, or if not reasonably practical, as soon as possible thereafter. In this case, the first payment to the landlord was made seven weeks after one of the tenants applied. As the reasons for the delay were not made clear, we upheld the complaint but made no recommendation because the council had already apologised to Mr C.

Ms C submitted a planning application to the council. She was concerned about the comments that her neighbours made on the application. She corresponded with the council about this and remained dissatisfied at the end of their complaints procedure. She complained to us that the council had not reasonably responded to her correspondence. However, our investigation considered the correspondence and we found that their responses were reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201302270 as a PDF (10.76 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C and her partner are in receipt of council tax benefit. The council notified Miss C that she had council tax arrears from three years before of more than £1700, which had to be paid within seven days. When she contacted the council they told her that the arrears had arisen because she and her partner had not told the council about a change in their household income at that time, resulting in an overpayment of council tax benefit. Miss C complained to us about the way the council handled her enquiries. She said that she was not reassured that the council were taking steps to improve their customer services, although they agreed that she had not received an acceptable standard of service. Miss C wanted an assurance that the council were committed to providing a valid, user friendly and reliable service. We examined the original demand notices issued to Miss C and her partner and found that there had been various changes to the amounts demanded because of changes to their benefit entitlement, but nothing to suggest that the arrears had arisen from an error on the council's part. We were satisfied from our investigation that the council had looked into the matter properly under their complaints procedure, had identified that there had been shortcomings in their customer service, and had made a commitment to improve certain areas. Although some of these changes were not yet in place, we were assured that in the long term the council were committing a significant amount of money to radically improve the ways a customer would be able to access council services. These included more efficient online services and a review of business processes to ensure that they were customer focused. On the understanding that it would be relatively easy to provide further information to the public through the council's website, we asked them to consider taking steps in the short term to provide additional information about the full options available where payment of council t

Mr C's late mother (Mrs A) was a council tenant before her death, and he complained to us about the way the council had handled a request for his mother's carer to move into the house shortly before his mother died. Although the request appeared to come from his mother, he told us that she had dementia and that the council did not establish if she had the capacity to make this decision when they allowed the carer to move in. He was also unhappy with the way the council handled the situation when, after his mother died, the carer was allowed to succeed to the tenancy. As it was clear that the council knew that Mrs A had dementia, we were concerned that they accepted the request without making certain specific checks. We took the view that this meant they had failed to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable tenant and we upheld this part of the complaint. The council told us that it was impossible to say whether a further check would have changed the decision in this case. They apologised, however, that their procedure was not as robust as it could have been. They agreed to revise their procedures to provide guidance and ensure that in future there would be a home visit and further checks before a carer could move in. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to follow the correct procedure in handling the succession to the tenancy.

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his council tax account, in particular in relation to his application for empty property exemption. His complaints were about communication, updating addresses on the council's system and failure to take action to ensure errors made in his case were not repeated. During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Mr C's initial enquiries about empty property exemption, but then delayed in taking action after he asked whether his property was exempt on the grounds that it was uninhabitable. The council had also accepted prior to our involvement that they should not have applied for a summary warrant for unpaid council tax, as the demand notice and reminder issued were incorrectly addressed. We found no evidence that emails or phone calls were not responded to, but did find that the council had incorrectly addressed correspondence. However, as we were satisfied that before we became involved they had already taken some action and proposed to take more, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201103447 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his concerns about dampness in his property following storm damage to his roof. He also raised his concern about the council's handling of his complaints. During our investigation we found that the council had carried out repairs to the roof and had arranged for two independent surveys to be carried out in connection with Mr C's concerns about dampness. Although the surveys did not identify any new evidence of water coming in, repairs were carried out as suggested in one of them. Given Mr C's continuing concerns about dampness the council agreed during our investigation to carry out a further independent survey of his property by a company not previously used. We were satisfied this was a positive response to Mr C's continuing concerns and did not uphold this complaint. We did uphold his complaint about complaints handling. We found that that the council had failed to handle Mr C's complaints in line with their own procedure. However, as they had apologised and had taken action to draw the matter to the attention of relevant officers, we did not need to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201203122 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about storage and collection of household waste at the building where he lives. He was unhappy that when he asked about providing a bin store, the council had said he and other residents should pay for this. Mr C was also unhappy that the council said that they had to present their bins at the kerbside for collection, which he said was a change to the existing arrangement. Although Mr C was unhappy with the council's responses, we did not uphold his complaints. Our investigation found that, as Mr C lived in a private development, there was no obligation on the council to pay for a bin store. We also found no evidence that the council had changed the existing arrangement. Related reading View Decision Report 201300591 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Residents complained that the council unfairly declined their request to have a tree, which was affecting their amenity, pruned. They were especially unhappy because the council had carried out maintenance on the tree in the past. The residents said that they had obtained their own survey from an independent tree surgeon, who had told them that the tree could be pruned without affecting its health. Our investigation found that the council surveyed the tree in 2008, and again in 2012 in response to the residents’ complaints. On both occasions they decided that it was in a fair condition, and did not need any work carried out. Although the survey undertaken by the council differed from what the residents said they had been told, we were unable to uphold the complaint because this came down to a matter of professional opinion. There was nothing to show that, in declining the residents’ request, the council failed to take into account relevant information. Related reading View Decision Report 201300273 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C rents out a flat, which she purchased over ten years ago. Three years after she bought it, the council issued an invoice for an emergency repair to the building. The statutory notice that they had given about this repair pre-dated her purchase, and Mrs C’s solicitors told her that this was not in the information provided by the council during a search before she bought the flat. When her solicitors contacted the collection company dealing with the debt, they were told that the council had withdrawn the account. No further requests for payment were made. More recently, during conveyancing for another property, Mrs C discovered that the council had taken legal action against her for payment of the old invoice. She paid this, but complained to the council that she was not liable, and that they had not contacted her about it before pursuing payment. The council refunded the expenses, interest and fees involved, but refused to also refund the amount of the original invoice for the repair. Mrs C complained to us that the council were unreasonably refusing to do so. Our investigation found that the council made the payment as a goodwill gesture, in recognition of their mistakes in handling the invoice, including sending it to the wrong address. However, Mrs C was held liable for the amount of the repair because, although she was not the person on whom the statutory notice was originally served, she owned the property when the council issued the account. Any failure in the search undertaken when Mrs C bought the flat was for her to take up with her legal representative, as it appeared that her solicitors did not pursue this with the council when this became known. We did not find that the council had issued the invoice incorrectly, but we did think that they should have explained why a refund for the invoice was not given.

Mr C complained about the way the council had responded to his representations to have tall trees on council land neighbouring his property trimmed. He was concerned that the trees could be dangerous in high winds, and that they blocked daylight into his property. The council had at one point told him that they would trim or remove trees that were not the subject of a tree preservation order (TPO). When, however, he complained that this had not happened, the council told him that all the trees in the area were in fact the subject of the TPO, and could not be touched. Mr C pursued his complaint, as he believed that the council could trim the trees for maintenance purposes, and was dissatisfied when the council maintained their position and would not trim the trees. Our investigation found that the council had properly explained to Mr C that they could not trim the trees as it would be an offence to reduce the height of or remove branches from healthy mature trees that were subject to a TPO. The council acknowledged that Mr C had safety concerns about the trees, but said they had been inspected and there was no evidence of disease that might mean they posed a danger. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found no fault in the council’s handling of the matter, although we did think that they could have told Mr C earlier that the TPO applied to the whole area, rather than to individual trees. However, we decided that there were no grounds to pursue the matter further, noting that the council have arranged for their forestry manager to inspect the trees each year, and that they will take immediate action if any tree or branch shows evidence of disease. Related reading View Decision Report 201204170 as a PDF (11.47 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said that the council did not follow their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a refund of phone call costs incurred in reporting repairs. Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged their failings in this matter, explained what had gone wrong and apologised to Mr C. They said it was clear that a member of staff had not followed the correct procedures, and explained the training the staff member had since received. We upheld the complaint, but did not make any recommendation as the council had already taken appropriate action. Related reading View Decision Report 201203615 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about a proposal by the developer of an adjacent site to vary a planning consent. Planning officers had regarded the proposal to vary the consent previously issued (to convert a former school to a care home and construct an extension) as a non-material variation (a material variation is a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest). The officers approved it as a delegated decision without reference to the relevant council committee. In dealing with the complaint, the council accepted that although the request to vary did not raise new planning issues, and more windows in the new extension would overlook Mr and Mrs C’s rear garden, a corner of the extension had been brought forward 70 centimetres closer to the boundary than the council’s published guidance. In that regard, the request to vary should not have been dealt with as a non-material variation. In light of the council’s acceptance of their error, we upheld the complaint and made two recommendations.

Mr C represents a number of local residents opposed to an ongoing planning application. He wrote to the council with concerns about the lack of a transport assessment in relation to the application. Mr C did not believe the council had responded to his letter. When the council clarified the items of correspondence that they believed responded to the letter, Mr C was dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. After discussing this with Mr C we decided that the only matter we could consider was the failure to address points in his letter. We tried to resolve this with the council, but Mr C remained dissatisfied and resubmitted his complaint to us. We decided that the council had not reasonably addressed some of the concerns Mr C had raised and that it was unreasonable that they had not identified this until we became involved.

Ms C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of a repair under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Ms C questioned whether the original repair to the roof had ever been done and, even if it had, the standard of the workmanship. This was because no one remembered the work having been done; the chronology of the notices and repair did not correspond; and another repair was required soon after. The council acknowledged administrative errors in their handling of the repair, but maintained that the work was carried out in 2010. They also felt that the time that had since passed made it impossible to confirm whether the latest repair was related in any way to the 2010 repair. The fact that the work was carried out under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 meant that we could not look at the first two aspects of Ms C’s complaint, as these were outwith our jurisdiction. However, we investigated the third aspect, about how they handled Ms C's complaint. The council acknowledged to us that they had not met their own timescales in doing so. They explained that they had reviewed their processes and had given feedback to the relevant members of staff. They had also recently adopted the model council complaints handling procedure recommended by our Complaints Standards Authority. However, we also found evidence that a council employee had told Ms C that the council would conduct the later repair at its own expense. This contradicted the council’s final response which said that they would only pay their individual share (as a part-owner of the building), so we asked the council for more information about this. In the light of the evidence received, we found there had been maladministration. We upheld this aspect of Ms C’s complaint and made a relevant recommendation.

Mr C complained that the council delayed carrying out an emergency repair on the window of the communal hallway at his home. He also complained that they failed to compensate him under the terms of the Right to Repair scheme for the delay in repairing the window and to comply with their responsibilities to regularly paint the communal stairway. Our investigation found that the repair did not qualify for compensation under the Right to Repair scheme as it was a repair to a communal area. We also found that although the original tenancy agreement indicated that the council would paint the stairway every five years, they had since signed the Scottish Secure Tenancy agreement, and that stair painting could now only be carried out when agreement was reached with all owners. The council demonstrated to us that they had tried to get other residents to agree to this work. However, we did find that, as the council accepted that the broken window had affected their tenant and carried out the repair, they should have done so when it was first brought to their attention. For this reason, and because their joiner failed to properly board up the window, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.