SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C told us that she moved in to her father's local authority house in October 2010. She said that, at the time, they had immediately requested that a joint tenancy be created but that the council failed to do this. She also complained that the council failed to adhere to an undertaking that after a six month qualifying period a joint tenancy would be created, backdated to October 2010. Ms C also alleged that after her father died in 2011 the council did not grant her an automatic right of succession to the tenancy, and did not independently review the circumstances of her complaint as they had promised. When we investigated the complaint we considered all the documentation and relevant legislation. We did not uphold any of Ms C's complaints. We found no evidence to confirm any of Ms C's allegations. There was no evidence that she moved into the house in 2010 - in fact, information from interviews with her late father confirmed that she moved there in April 2011 at the earliest. Ms C had also said that her father sent a recorded delivery letter in November 2010 asking that a joint tenancy be created. She was, however, unable to provide confirmation of postage that would have allowed the council to track the letter. There was no evidence of a promise to backdate the tenancy. Although Ms C provided information which, she said, confirmed the date she took occupancy of the house the council said that this conflicted with previous information. Our investigation confirmed this to be the case. The council also asked her to provide specific information to show that her father's house had been her principal home, which they said would remove any doubt, but Ms C failed to do so. After receiving the complaint, the council asked Ms C if she would agree to an independent review by a manager from outwith her area. She agreed. The review was completed and Ms C's tenancy was recognised as being from the date after her father died. Related reading View Decision Report 201102642 as

Mr C was cycling on a designated cycle-path in a public park when a dog ran into him. As a result, Mr C was thrown from his bicycle. Five months later, he reported the accident and asked the council to serve a warning notice on the owner of the dog. Some seven months after that, the council responded advising that their management rules for parks did not allow for notices to be served on dog owners. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response and the time they took to provide it and raised his complaints with us. On investigating, we decided that the council's position regarding the enforcement of management rules was reasonable but that they had taken an unreasonable time to respond to his enquiries. As the council had already apologised for the delay itself, however, we recommended only that they apologise further to Mr C. Recommendation We recommended that the council: • apologise to Mr C for not providing him with an explanation for their delay in responding to his contact or outlining the steps they had taken to ensure the delay would not be repeated. Related reading View Decision Report 201103133 as a PDF (21.78 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that a council officer advised her that the electric central heating in the council house she was offered would be replaced with gas heating. She believes that she needs this as she suffers from asthma and other respiratory (breathing) health problems. She said that she was told that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority points. She also said that it was only after she accepted the property that the council explained that the heating would not be replaced. The council told us that the housing officer told her that they might be able to change the heating system and that he would contact the property services department to find out if this was possible. As the heating system in the property was only five years old, however, it was not possible to replace it. They confirmed that, as the house had been assessed as being suitable for her needs, she was informed that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority status. In our investigation, we considered her concerns. We confirmed that, although we could not be certain what was said by the housing officer, if she refused a property which was assessed as meeting her needs she would have lost her gold priority points. We also found that the council had reviewed information from her GP and a respiratory consultant and were satisfied that the electric heating would not have a negative impact on Mrs C's health. As Mrs C would indeed have lost her gold priority points had she not accepted this property, and as we could not establish for certain what exactly was said by the housing officer, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103628 as a PDF (17.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his elderly mother who is the owner occupier of a ground floor flat in a tenement stair of six flats. Four of the flats, including the two at the top, are in council ownership. Since 2006, in response to complaints from the top flat tenants about leaks, the council instructed repairs to the roof, using provisions in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Mr C complained that the council unjustifiably authorised repeat roof repairs for a repair that was not properly undertaken in the first place and failed to ensure that the repairs were undertaken properly and to a satisfactory standard. He also said that council staff were rude and unhelpful to Mr C's mother and that the council did not communicate with Mr C rather than his mother when he asked them to do so. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. As part of our investigation we reviewed the details of all the works commissioned, from which it appeared that the costs were in fact less than Mr C had claimed. There was no evidence to suggest that later work was needed because of inadequate workmanship or scrutiny. The council's database showed nearly fifty contacts with Mr C's mother since 2009 and no evidence that she had complained about rudeness or that she had given Mr C a mandate to deal with the council on her behalf. Related reading View Decision Report 201102363 as a PDF (17.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C and Ms C complained about the council's handling of an application for single person discount for council tax. The council had originally decided not to award single person discount but following the introduction of new guidance had revised their decision. Although single person discount had been awarded, Mr C and Ms C were unhappy with the number of questions asked by the council and the lack of explanation for the reasons for the questions. They were also concerned about the handling of their representations on the matter, the quality of information provided and the handling of their formal complaint. We upheld most of the complaints. Prior to our involvement, the council had accepted that there had been some failings in the decision making processing and had taken action to improve the process and their customer service. During our investigation the council also accepted that they had failed to provide adequate information to Mr C and Ms C during the processing of the application. We did not, however, find evidence of any fault in the handling of the complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of two planning applications for the construction of a new house on a plot of land neighbouring his home. Planning permission was initially granted for the build, despite the council's failure to notify neighbours of the development as required by planning regulations. Although the developer had the council's permission to build the new house, this was vulnerable to legal challenge due to this failure to notify neighbours. To remedy this, the developer submitted a new planning application so that neighbour notification could be carried out. Planning permission was subsequently approved again. Mr C felt that the original planning permission should have been revoked while the second application was being considered. He believed that the failure to do this meant that any objections submitted would be dismissed in favour of confirming the existing planning permission. Mr C submitted objections based on the impact the new development would have on his own property's privacy. He did not feel that his objections were taken into account when planning permission was granted for a second time. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council granted planning permission without neighbour notification. However, we did not find it necessary for the original planning permission to be revoked while the resubmitted planning application was being considered. The planning officer's report showed that due consideration was given to Mr C's objections with reference to local planning policy and we were, therefore, generally satisfied that the second planning application had been properly processed. Mr C was told by the planning committee's vice convenor that he would be invited to attend a pre-determination hearing. This did not happen and he was subsequently told that planning permission had been granted without his attendance at such a meeting. On looking at this issue, we found that it was beyond the vice convenor's powers to make this promise

Ms C purchased a property which she intended to rent out to students. She contacted the council to establish what should be done about council tax. Ms C complained that the council provided her with inaccurate information, leading her to believe that the tenants would be liable for the council tax. The council sent student packs to the tenants but they did not complete these. Ms C did not know this until she visited the property and found a number of demand notices. When she provided further information about the tenancy agreements, the council decided that the property was a house of multiple occupancy (HMO), making Ms C liable for council tax as landlord. Ms C complained that, had she been told that the property was an HMO sooner, she could have made different arrangements that would have accounted for or avoided much of the council tax arrears that accrued. She also complained that the council failed to update her home address details. This resulted in correspondence and demand notices being sent to the wrong address, affecting her ability to resolve this. We did not uphold the first two complaints. We found that the council provided appropriate information about council tax, based on the information that they had. Once they established that the property was an HMO, they worked appropriately with Ms C to establish if discounts and student exemptions should be applied to the account. We did not find that the council failed to record Ms C's address correctly when she bought the property. We did find, however, that they were slow to update their system when she told them about later changes of address, and upheld this complaint. We recognised the impact that this had on Ms C, but as the council had already acknowledged their error and apologised to her we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201003730 as a PDF (17.54 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C, a solicitor, brought a complaint on behalf of her client (Mrs A). An application for the development of a property neighbouring that of Mrs A was submitted in mid-2010. Mrs A objected to this application. In late August 2010 the application was approved. Mrs C complained to the council that they did not reasonably consider the planning application – she said there were inaccuracies in the application paperwork concerning the width of a roadway. The council advised that while the location plan showed the roadway as being 2 metres wider than was accurate, the detailed plan showed an accurate width of the roadway. Mrs A was dissatisfied with this response and raised this complaint with us. We found that as the detailed plan was accurate and objections relating to the width of the roadway were noted in the report by the committee who determined the application, there was no evidence of the maladministration or service failure alleged and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100055 as a PDF (13.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C is an owner/occupier in a tenement building which is partially private but in which the council still has an interest. She was dissatisfied with the cost of mutual repairs (stair entry door) which the council arranged and she claimed that all the works she was billed for had not been undertaken. When Mrs C received a reduced bill, she claimed that the council failed to explain the reason for the reduction. Mrs C complained that the council's handling of the matter, particularly that they took an excessively long time to investigate. Our investigation established that the council had arranged for the repairs to be undertaken without consulting with the other owners because it was deemed to be emergency work, necessitating immediate action in the interests of residents' safety. The council informed us that visits were undertaken but it was clear that there had been a delay in responding to Mrs C's complaint, and it was not handled appropriately under the terms of their complaints procedure. We upheld the complaint about failings in the council's complaints handling. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that the council had not explained the reason for the reduction in the repairs bill because the evidence confirmed that a satisfactory explanation was given. Recommendation We recommended that the council: • issue a formal apology from the Chief Executive to the complainant in recognition of the council's shortcomings in the handling of her complaint under their complaints procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201102688 as a PDF (18.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's refusal to renew his zone 2 parking permit in February 2011 despite him having been issued with one on an annual basis since purchasing his property in 1986. Mr C was unhappy that the council issued his neighbour with a zone 2 permit and that there was no clear advice, consultation or notice from the council that they were implementing the change in practice. We established that the council had been incorrectly issuing Mr C with a zone 2 permit for around 25 years instead of a zone 6 permit to which he was entitled under the applicable Traffic Regulation Order. Therefore, we concluded that the council acted reasonably and appropriately when informing Mr C that he was not entitled to a zone 2 permit. We also considered that there was insufficient evidence to support that the council would have been in a position to consult with Mr C or his neighbours prior to implementing the change in practice. This is because the problem with Mr C's permit was identified when he attempted to renew his permit online after a new IT system had been implemented. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, in recognition that he had received a zone 2 permit for the past 25 years and that he wanted to continue with this practice, the council agreed to continue issuing him with a zone 2 permit until amendments have been made to the Traffic Regulation Order.

Mr C had been a council tenant for three years. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to anti-social behaviour and that the council had failed to take effective action. As result of the antisocial behaviour he was forced to give up his tenancy in 2011 and he complained that the council had failed to take appropriate action at that time to meet his housing needs. Our investigation found that during 2009 there had been faults in the council's handling of the matter. However, from December 2009 Mr C had made no further complaints until August 2010 and we found the council to have followed its policy in relation to Mr C's complaints from that period. In view of the faults identified during 2009, however, we upheld the complaint. We found that, when Mr C was forced to leave his tenancy in 2011, the council followed their policy and we did not uphold the complaint that they had failed to meet his housing needs.

Mr C complained that he moved into a flat, unaware that council tax was not included in the rent. He only discovered this when a third party moved in. The council negotiated with Mr C on ways to recover his unpaid council tax, but this was unsuccessful. We found that Mr C had been given correct information and guidance from the council (which took account of Mr C's specific situation) and that they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold his complaint that the council failed to provide consistent advice on his options to repay his council tax arrears. Neither did we uphold his complaints that the council sent him arrears letters when a repayment plan had been agreed, given that such letters are computer generated when arrears gather, or that the council failed to abide by an alleged agreement they would stop sending him council tax demand letters, as there was no evidence to support this. Related reading View Decision Report 201100538 as a PDF (13.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Since 2010 Mrs C has been concerned about the damage caused to the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links, a public parkland area in Edinburgh, by the use of barbecues. Mrs C has also been concerned about the health and safety implications of the use of barbecues and the disposal of resultant waste, including disposable barbecue trays. Mrs C corresponded with the council about these concerns, given that the council's Management Rules for Public Parks prohibit the lighting of fires or barbecues without the council's written permission. In 2010 the council implemented a trial scheme to allow barbecues to be used in the park on concrete slabs installed for that purpose. This trial was again implemented in 2011. Mrs C did not feel this improved the situation and lodged a formal complaint in August 2011 that the council were not implementing their Management Rules for Public Parks. In their response to Mrs C's complaints the council told her that the trial scheme would be reviewed and outlined various actions they would take to manage the situation over the remainder of summer 2011. Mrs C was dissatisfied with their response and raised her complaints with us. We decided that the council's actions had taken into account rule 7 of the Management Rules for Public Parks, which allowed the council to waive any rule at any time and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201101105 as a PDF (14.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to acknowledge or investigate a failure of their neighbour notification system regarding a planning application for a development in his area. He said that when he and three of his neighbours did not receive notification of the proposed development he complained to the council. Mr C said that the council claimed that there had not been a failing in their system and refused to investigate the matter. Mr C felt that they had not tested what went wrong with the neighbour notification system, despite his evidence that showed the system was failing. Mr C provided copies of his communications with the council. The council’s view was that they had complied with their neighbour notification system. They provided evidence to demonstrate that this was the case. They said they do not have a statutory obligation to investigate failures in the system beyond what is set out in law and there is no statutory requirement for them to find out whether there was a substantial body of evidence that notification had not been carried out. In looking at Mr C’s complaint, it was not our role to determine whether there was a systemic failure by the council to carry out neighbour notification, but to determine whether Mr C's complaint about alleged systemic failure was handled correctly. We found that in terms of general complaint handling, it was reasonable for the council not to launch an investigation into alleged systemic failure on the basis of one complaint that one neighbour did not receive notification. (It was alleged but not proven that this also occurred to another three neighbours and we noted that the other three neighbours did not complain to the council.) However, while the council's decision not to investigate further was reasonable, their response about when a reported neighbour notification failure would warrant further action was vague and unclear. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made the following recomm

Mr C purchased his new home in August 2009. The building is roofed with a proprietary roofing system rather than slates or tiles. Mr C was alarmed in January 2010 when he noted that the roof tended to shed accumulations of snow. Because he felt this was dangerous, he brought it to the developer's attention. The developer, however, did not consider this to be a problem. The developer applied for a certificate of completion and the council issued a Notice of Acceptance of Completion Certificate under Section 18 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. Mr C was still very unhappy and, in addition to contacting other interested parties, such as the architects for the project and National House Building Council, he engaged in detailed technical correspondence with the council on whether a building warrant should have been granted and verified. He also wanted to know whether the council should regard the building as unsafe and so take action. Dissatisfied with their response, he complained to us. Our investigation did not uphold Mr C’s complaints that the council erroneously granted building regulations approval, acted improperly in defending the verification of the building warrant, or failed to act when Mr C alleged that the building was dangerous. This is because we found that they properly considered the issues he raised and responded accordingly. Mr C strongly disagrees with their position but that does not mean that the council acted wrongly. They have discretion to make such decisions and we cannot question this in the absence of any administrative or service failure on their part. Related reading View Decision Report 201100459 as a PDF (14.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he was fined £45 for late payment of council tax. He considered this unreasonable because he said he had not been given the opportunity to pay in ten monthly instalments. The original demand notice stated that an annual lump sum payment was due by 30 April 2010 and Mr C had later contacted the council to request to pay in instalments. A revised notice was issued to him in June 2010 for seven payments to be made by January 2011. We found that the legislation which applies to paying council tax (The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2000) says that the amount is to be payable in no more than ten monthly instalments beginning when the demand notice is issued prior to the beginning of the relevant year. In line with this legislation, we found that the amended payment schedule reflected the three payments Mr C had already made and set out the balance to be paid in seven further instalments. As the demand was issued before the beginning of the relevant year (and the notification issued to him in June 2010 was not a new demand notice), the council could only allow him to pay by ten instalments in total. Mr C was fined (following the issue of two reminder notices) because he did not comply with the revised instalment payment schedule, and his account was passed to the warrant recovery stage in line with the Regulations. We found that the council had administered this correctly. Related reading View Decision Report 201102443 as a PDF (14.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council treated her unfairly when administering her council tax account. She said that money continued to be deducted from her pension credit to pay council tax after the council said that they had instructed the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to stop this. Ms C also said that she was incorrectly charged for a late payment, and that the council did not give her sufficient information about the years to which the arrears on her account related. Ms C’s complaint included an allegation that the council failed to deal with her complaints according to their complaints procedure. We upheld all of Ms C’s complaints. When we investigated, the council confirmed that they had told DWP to stop the deductions. However, when DWP told them that this would not be done for some months, the council failed to follow this up despite Ms C complaining again about the continued deductions. We found this delay inappropriate. On the matter of the incorrect charge, the council accepted that Ms C was unlikely to have received the demand notice that resulted in the issue of a warrant for late payment. They also accepted that she was not given enough information about the council’s application to the DWP about deductions to her pension credit and about the unpaid council tax that resulted in this application being made. We noted that the council acknowledged in correspondence with Ms C that there had been delays in dealing with her complaint. As a result of our investigation they also accepted that they should have told Ms C that their response would be delayed.

Mr C complained about inaction by the council with regard to building warrants issued for his neighbour's property. His and his neighbour's property were formerly a single dwelling with a shared stairwell. Mr C's neighbour applied for a building warrant to renovate his property, including works within the old stairwell. Mr C complained that the works were not completed in line with the building warrant or to the required fire and accoustic insulation standard. He considered that the warrant required his neighbour to divide the two properties by introducing a new ceiling at the level of Mr C's floor. The neighbour's failure to do so prevented Mr C from carrying out work for which he had obtained a building warrant. Mr C complained that the council did not act when told about the lack of sub-division of the properties. He also felt they should have taken enforcement action against his neighbour as the work was not carried out in line with the building warrant. We did not find that the original building warrant (or a subsequent amendment) required his neighbour to divide the properties. We were concerned, however, that the council did not take prompt action to address legitimate fire safety concerns raised by Mr C and made recommendations.

Ms C purchased a flat in a building in the city. Shortly thereafter, the council served a statutory notice on owners of the building requiring rectification of specified matters of disrepair. Ms C complained that she had not been notified and had lost the opportunity as a joint owner to organise the works herself at less expense. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 201001983 as a PDF (13.56 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The complaint concerned the council's administration of statutory notices issued on a building in the city. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 200903212 as a PDF (13.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The complaint concerned the council's administration of statutory notices issued on a building in the city. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 201100411 as a PDF (13.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The complaint concerns the council's administration of a statutory notice issued on a building in the city. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 201003500 as a PDF (13.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The complaint concerned the council's administration of statutory notices issued on a building in the city. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 201004185 as a PDF (13.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The complaint concerned the council's administration of a statutory notice placed on a building in the city. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 201005152 as a PDF (13.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives in a top floor tenement flat in a close which was the subject of three statutory notices. He was aggrieved that after scaffolding had been erected and the scope of the works had been extended, the council had failed to consult independent engineers. He also considered that conservation measures had not been taken in respect of chimneys, that best value had not been obtained, the front chimneys were damaged and that lack of adequate supervision had lead to an increase in costs. This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review. Related reading View Decision Report 201003484 as a PDF (13.65 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018