SPSO Individual Decisions

C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to replace their kitchen, which was outdated and in a state of disrepair, and their windows, which were aluminium framed, did not have working vents, and as such were promoting the growth of mould. C gave up the tenancy due to concerns about the condition of the property, the potential health impact, and their frustrations with the delays. C complained that the council remedied both longstanding issues very shortly after, to allow the property to be re-let. C also complained that the council’s complaints response was inaccurate. The council had stated that C’s kitchen was due to be replaced, however, that there had been a backlog due in part to the pause in all but essential works during the pandemic. They said that when C moved out the kitchen was replaced by a team whose role was to prepare tenancies to be re-let, who had a different caseload and worked to different timescales. The council stated that C’s windows had been replaced as part of a broader programme of window and door replacements. They said that this had been communicated to C earlier in the year, and that the work had not been brought forward because the tenancy had been vacated. We found that a referral had been made for a new kitchen to be installed approximately a year prior to C moving out. It was also evident that the council had engaged with C regarding the condition of the windows, and that they had instructed a contractor to survey the windows and to make minor repairs. It was communicated to C on a number of occasions that the windows were due to be replaced and a survey had been carried out in preparation. It was also apparent that C’s property had been prioritised as part of the scheme. As the council had taken steps to investigate these issues and make the necessary referrals and preparations, acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 and the council’s discretion with respect to planning large scale works, overall, we did not consider

C is a council tenant and lives with their family. C complained that the property they were living in suffered from significant problems with damp and mould. C believed that the conditions in the property were adversely affecting the family’s health and damaging their possessions. It was acknowledged by the council that C had been raising concerns for some time. Although the council had carried out works and surveys on C’s property, damp problems remained. We found that the primary cause of damp had not been identified and the council accepted further works were required, and that the time taken to address the problem had been excessive. We found that the council could not evidence that they had considered the impact on C of their living conditions and it was not clear that the property was treated as a priority in line with the council’s revised damp and mould policy. We upheld C’s complaint that the issues with their property had not been dealt with reasonably.

C complained about the council’s handling of their council tax account. They had applied for a single person discount and a council tax reduction. C complained that the council failed to manage their account properly, did not communicate with them and issued warning notices for payment while the account was in dispute. C said that the council’s handling of their account amounted to discrimination. We found that there were significant delays throughout the council’s assessment. However, we noted that this took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were disrupted. We found nothing to suggest the council were discriminating against C but considered that their communication was generally poor. We were satisfied that C’s council tax reduction entitlement was assessed reasonably, but we considered more could have been done to obtain the relevant information for the purposes of assessing C’s application for single person discount. We upheld C's complaint.

C reported concerns to the council’s environmental services department about smoke pollution over a number of years as a result of their neighbour burning bonfires and a wood-burning stove. C was dissatisfied with the lack of action taken by the council and submitted a complaint. C considered that the council’s investigation of their concerns was insufficiently detailed, failed to take account of available evidence, and dismissed factors which C considered important. C also complained that the council’s response contained a number of inaccuracies. We found that the council did not meet the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. However, the complaint was raised and investigated during the COVID-19 pandemic and C was advised from the outset that timescales were being affected. The council also apologised for this delay. We considered the overall time taken to have been understandable in the circumstances. However, we did note that the council failed to communicate to C that their complaint was being considered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure, despite initially advising that it would be reviewed at stage 1 and that C was not provided with updates when they asked. It is also clear that there was ongoing communication between C and environmental services throughout the investigation period, correspondence sent and received via a councillor on C's behalf and Freedom of Information requests made. This all contributed to an overall confused chain of correspondence. Generally, we were satisfied that C’s complaints were taken seriously and an investigation was carried out before the council’s response was issued. However, we found that the investigation sought mainly to respond to the complaint, rather than get to the root cause and attempt to resolve C’s dissatisfaction. The council’s response to C’s complaint reiterated their previously-stated position on whether they considered statutory nuisance had been witnessed. However, C’s complaint refe

C complained about The City of Edinburgh Council’s administration of their council tax account. C complained that the council issued reminders for council tax arrears and threats of legal action when they had paid their council tax in accordance with a payment arrangement. C also complained that the council failed to respond to the their complaint in accordance with their Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP). The council apologised for delay in responding to C’s complaint. They said that a council tax payment reminder had been sent to C as they had made a payment without using their reference number. This had meant that the payment hadn’t been allocated to C’s account. C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the council had failed to respond to their correspondence and had failed to take the fact that they are a vulnerable person into account. We found that the council had repeatedly failed to engage with C’s correspondence over a significant period of time. We found serious and repeated failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We considered that the council acted without any consideration or accommodation of C’s vulnerability. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

C's complaints related to a council-run football pitch next to their home. C reported that the noise levels from the pitch, as well as foul language by the users of the pitch were reaching unreasonable levels, particularly later in the evening before the pitch closed at 10pm, and that this was keeping their young child awake. They explained that they had provided recordings to the council to evidence this, but that the council had refused to take action to address it. We found that the council had, in response to C's concerns, amended their letting terms and conditions to ensure that there were clear rules prohibiting unreasonable noise levels and language by renters of the pitch. However, the only steps that the council had taken to address this with users, was to send a general email about unreasonable noise to all renters of pitches they ran, warning that leases may be removed if terms and conditions were breached by unreasonable behaviour. Given that C had been providing clear reports and recordings of specific times and behaviours, we considered it was unreasonable for the council not to take any steps to raise these issues with the specific users responsible. We also considered that the council had failed to provide sufficient explanations to C of the kind of evidence that they would consider and how they would investigate their concerns. For these reasons, we upheld C's complaint.

C is the owner of a 'four-in-a-block' flat and the other three properties in the block are owned by the council. The council undertook a programme of external works in C's local area to upgrade the properties that they owned. The council told C that the works were required and C's share of the cost would be £14,127.44. C felt that the amount they were expected to pay was too high. C told the council that they did not consent to the works proceeding. C asked for the option of their property being excluded from the works as C felt other homeowners had been given this option. The council said that they carried out a consultation and that C had the opportunity to vote against the works, provide their own quotes, and appeal the decision to proceed. The council gave C extra time to appeal against their decision. No appeal was submitted to the courts and the council proceeded with the works. C complained that, despite their objections, the works went ahead, that the council did not explain what they meant when they mentioned C's title deeds, that the council appeared to have an inconsistent approach, and that they communicated unreasonably with C. We found that the council took reasonable action in line with the title deeds and their own procedures. Whilst it appeared some other properties in the area had not had works completed, we did not find evidence to suggest that the council had an inconsistent approach. The way in which the council made the decision to proceed with works was reasonable. We also found that, whilst there were two occasions where the council failed to respond to C and one where the response was sent to a councillor, in general, the council communicated reasonably. They explained the process, provided additional advice on where to find financial support, directed C to seek legal advice, and extended the timescale for C to submit an appeal to the court if they wished. On balance, we found that the council's communication with C was reasonable.

C is welfare guardian (a court appointed guardian who can make decisions on behalf of an adult with incapacity) for their adult sibling (A). A was assessed in hospital by the health and social care partnership as needing full-time residential adult care. C disagreed with this assessment and considered that A would be better cared for at home. C returned A to their home following their hospital discharge. C maintained that as A had been assessed as requiring full-time care, they were entitled to have this fully funded at home and that they were entitled to be offered the relevant self-directed support payment options for this care. Glasgow City Council refused to provide such funding, maintaining that they were only under a duty to fully fund the care assessed as needed. Adult protection procedures were considered but as C was now providing full-time care to A, alongside a council funded care package, no action was taken. C complained to the partnership about the assessment outcome and the failure to provide fully funded full-time home care for A. There were considerable delays in responding to the complaint for which the partnership later apologised, however they maintained their view that A was not entitled to full-time fully funded home care and their original assessment had been appropriate. C brought their complaint to this office and raised further concerns about the tone of partnership's communications and the investigation of their complaint. We found that A was entitled to assessment under the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act and funding to meet the needs assessed. However, the council were not obliged to provide funding to meet care costs where the care being provided did not meet that assessed need (in this case care at home rather than residential care). We concluded that the assessment of A's needs was appropriate and that the council were not obligated to offer self-directed support payments. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. Related

C complained about the actions of the council in carrying out roof repair works on a block of flats as an emergency repair, without seeking prior agreement from shared owners. C also raised concerns that the invoice charged for excess materials. C’s flat was let to the council through a management agent, and the council initially sent the invoice for the works to the agent. C complained that the council did not send the invoice to them directly, and they did not receive it until around two years later. The council noted that the required repair constituted a health and safety risk, and was therefore classed as an emergency and carried out as soon as possible. They confirmed the works were visually checked by a council official before being signed off, and they refuted that excess materials had been charged for. They advised that the opportunity had been taken to clean the gutters while scaffolding was erected, and acknowledged this did not meet the definition of an emergency repair. They confirmed it is normal procedure to send invoices to the party listed on the national landlord registration database, and that in some cases this is the agent. The council considered the delay in the invoice reaching C lay predominantly with the agent, although they accepted they delayed for around six months after the agent had asked them to send the invoice directly to C. We were satisfied that classification of the works as an emergency was a matter for the council’s discretion, and that their policy entitled them to carry out such work without owners’ agreement. We were unable to evidence that owners were charged for excess materials, but we noted the gutter cleaning work was not an emergency and should not have been carried out without owners’ consent. We were unable to confirm the party listed on the landlord database at the time of the works, but we noted the council contributed to the delay in the invoice being issued directly to C. On balance, we upheld this compl

Ms C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A) that the council unreasonably issued Mr A with a third warning under the council’s anti-social behaviour policy following an altercation between Mr A and his neighbour. Mr A’s neighbour brought an anti-social behaviour complaint against Mr A, which was corroborated by an audio recording taken during the altercation. Ms C complained that the council’s handling of the anti-social behaviour complaint against Mr A was unreasonable as they went straight to a third warning and should not have relied on the recording from the neighbour as evidence when investigating the neighbour’s complaint. We found that the council’s anti-social behaviour policy allows for escalation directly to a third warning, bypassing first and second warnings, in cases where an adult is involved in serious anti-social behaviour. We found that the council’s handling of the anti-social complaint made against Mr A was in line with their anti-social behaviour policy and as such did not uphold this part of the complaint. Ms C also complained that Mr A was inappropriately recorded by a council officer and was only made aware when it was referenced by the council in their complaint correspondence. We were unable to find, on the basis of the information and evidence available, that the recording was inappropriate and as such did not uphold this part of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201900330 as a PDF (24.3 KB) Updated: August 19, 2020

Ms C complained about the service provided by the council after her property sustained water ingress from a nearby mains water pipe. The pipe was located under a council owned footpath and fed a nearby property. Scottish Water was unable to assist in the circumstances and so the council undertook to investigate the leak. Subsequently, a contractor appointed by the council excavated the footpath and fixed the leaking pipe. Initially, the water ingress into Ms C's property ceased. However, a short time later Ms C contacted the council to advise of a reoccurrence of the water ingress. The council did not accept Ms C's position that the work carried out by their contractor had caused the further ingress and decided not to undertake further work on the pipe. Ms C was unhappy with the way the council had dealt with the leaking pipe. We found no evidence that these repairs were inspected by the council prior to or at completion to ensure that they were carried out to a satisfactory standard. We concluded that there was a lack of appropriate oversight over the works and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also had concerns about the way the council handled her correspondence and complaints. The council acknowledged to Ms C that they had not responded to a number of her letters, yet we found that they did not adequately establish the reasons as to why this happened. While other aspects of the council's complaint handling were satisfactory, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

C complained about a number of matters relating to the primary school education of their child (A). C was firstly concerned about the way the school had handled their requests for A to receive educational support. We found that the school had arranged a number of assessments and also met C to discuss their concerns. We were satisfied that the school took into account the evidence available in reaching their view about whether A had support needs. We did not identify failings and we did not uphold this complaint. C was also unhappy about the level of information provided in relation to applying to a specific secondary school. We concluded that it was more likely than not that C received the standard information issued to parents about the right to make a placing request and details on how to do this. We did not find evidence that C requested additional information and that the council had failed to respond. We did not uphold this complaint. C further complained about the school contacting the social work service in relation to A. We considered the circumstances of the contact and the council's policy in relation to this. We did not conclude that the school acted inappropriately in the circumstances. We did not uphold this complaint. Finally, C raised concern that a council officer provided them with inaccurate information about what would be discussed at a meeting. We did not find evidence that C was misinformed in relation to this matter. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201807786 as a PDF (24.38 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Ms C complained to the council on behalf of her son (Mr A) about a council property he moved into. Ms C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs to Mr A's property in line with their obligations and relevant policies and procedures. We agreed with the council that there may be snagging issues when someone moves into a new property. Therefore, we did not consider the fact there were repair issues after Mr A moved into the property to be unreasonable. However, we found some of the timescales and communication around repairs to be unreasonable. Furthermore, we did not consider the council always gave sufficient consideration to Mr A's personal circumstances, particularly when scheduling repairs and providing notification of visits. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained that the council failed to carry out reasonable adaptations to Mr A's garden in line with their obligations and previous assurances provided to him. We noted the council's policies and guidance, which indicated that only basic work will generally be carried out in respect of garden areas before a new tenant moves in. Furthermore, we did not consider there to be evidence to suggest the council failed to carry out specific work or adaptations previously committed to. We agreed with Ms C that evidence she provided shows the garden was in a poor condition and not clear of rubbish when Mr A initially moved in, although this was addressed by the council later. We provided feedback to the council about this. However, we did not consider this to mean that the council failed to carry out reasonable adaptations to the garden. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Finally, Ms C complained that the council let the property to Mr A when it was not in a safe or reasonably suitable condition for him to move in. Ms C highlighted the number of repairs that were carried out after Mr A moved into the property and the fact that the windows in

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably acted in contravention of the title deeds of his property, that they had unfairly discriminated against him and his family and that they had failed to investigate his complaints over six months. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve a boundary dispute between Mr C as a property owner and his neighbour, who was a council tenant. We could not determine whether the council had contravened the council deeds as this is not a matter we can consider. We found that council staff had not treated Mr C or his family unfairly, although we recognised that he and members of his family had found dealing with council staff distressing at times. We also found that the council had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints with evidence they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201805833 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained to the council that flooding in his back garden was caused by drainage problems in the school grounds located to the rear of his back garden. The council's position was that the flooding was not their responsibility and may be caused by landscaping in Mr C's garden. The council said that the school contract requires the school area to be free of standing water after a number of hours following rainfall and that additional gully drainage was installed many years ago to assist with localised ponding. They said their investigation showed there was a gradual slope to the playground which water would run down away from Mr C's property. The council instructed an engineer to attend Mr C's home and visit the school site. A few weeks later a council officer and a contractor visited Mr C at home, and advised Mr C that their opinion was that the hard landscaping in his back garden was forming a basin which was likely to be the reason the rainfall was pooling in his garden. The council emailed Mr C to confirm that, given his concerns, their facilities management contractor had instructed work to be carried out to jet the drains in the school again. They later confirmed to our office that this work had not been carried out. Although we considered that the council had carried out reasonable investigations in order to assess Mr C's concerns, we were critical of the council for failing to carry out their commitment to jet the drains. We also noted discrepancies in the records of the facilities management contractor, which showed no evidence or record of ponding. This was at odds with the engineer's reports and confirmation supplied by Mr C, showing evidence of ponding. On the basis that the council offered to undertake works, which an appropriately qualified person instructed and put in writing to Mr C, but then did not carry out, we upheld this complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that the coun

Ms C complained about the council's actions when she reported concerns about her child (Child A) to the social work department on several occasions. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that in relation to the first time Ms C raised concerns, the records were inadequate to determine whether the decisions made by the council were reasonable or not. We found that in relation to the second time Ms C raised concerns, the council should have carried out further investigation and it was unreasonable that they did not. We found that when the council was contacted by a health board in relation to concerns about Child A, they failed to assess the matter in full and therefore failed to follow national guidance on 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC). We considered that it unclear from the records why the council took no further action at this point. Overall, we found that there had been a failure to properly record what happened, assessments, and follow-up. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained about the council's communication with her and their handling of her complaint. We found that the complaint responses to Ms C lacked empathy and understanding. We were also critical that the council's complaint process did not identify the failings in social work practice and failed to acknowledge the significance of poor record-keeping in this case. We considered this to be unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Mrs C, the sole homeowner in a council owned block of homes, complained about a unreasonable delay in arranging for mutual repairs to the property and a failure to keep her reasonably informed regarding when repairs would be carried out. We took no further action as the complaint was resolved on the basis of a reduction in the cost of the repair work in acknowledgement of the complaint received. Related reading View Decision Report 201801027 as a PDF (23.49 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C complained that his late mother (Miss A), who stayed in a council owned care home, was not provided with appropriate care in relation to monitoring her prior to and after a fall in which she broke her arm. He also complained that the council failed to appropriately communicate with him regarding Miss A's condition. In response to Mr C's complaints, the council identified that there had been some failings in recording. They provided us with an action plan for improvements to be made, and a new policy in relation to falls. On reviewing the council's policies and guidance alongside Miss A's notes, we found that when she fell and complained of pain in her arm, there was a failure to immediately seek urgent medical opinion as per the council's policy. We also found that the falls risk assessment had not been reviewed as often as was specified by guidance. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, however, considered that the council's new falls guidance would, if followed, prevent a recurrence of these events. In relation to communication with Mr C about Miss A's condition, we found that Mr C was not Miss A's recorded next of kin and that there was no policy that required Mr C to be contacted by the council. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C lived adjacent to a council house. There was water ingress into Mr C's property, and his roofing contractor felt that a chimney he shared with the council property was part of the problem. Mr C contacted the council, and he said they told him to take no action to repair the chimney, and that they would inspect their property and sort the problem. The council denied giving Mr C this advice, and it took them a year to gain access to their property and inspect it. The council decided they would not arrange removal of the chimney. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably told him to take no action to repair the chimney and that they unreasonably decided not to remove it. We found that Mr C and a council officer had differing recollections of what was said about what the council would do. As there was no independent evidence from anyone who witnessed the conversation, we could not prove exactly what was said. We also found that, although Mr C disagreed with the councils' decision not to arrange removal of the chimney, there was no obligation on the council to arrange for removal, and they explained clearly to Mr C why they would not do so. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council delayed in gaining access to their property to inspect for water ingress. We found that the delay was unreasonable and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As the council apologised to Mr C for the delay, we made no recommendations. However, we did feed back to the council about seeking to avoid such delays in future. Related reading View Decision Report 201707834 as a PDF (24.01 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of his planning application. Firstly, he complained that the council granted and then withdrew planning permission. The council had acknowledged that they had made an error when issuing his listed building consent, by using the template for planning consent rather than the correct listed buildings consent template. They were of the view that this was an administrative error and that, as such, the planning consent had not been legally granted. We were critical that the council had issued a decision on the wrong template, and we highlighted to the council that this could give the impression that plannng consent had been granted. As a result of this failure, and the failure to promptly and clearly clarify why the mistake was made and what would be done to correct the error, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Secondly, Mr C raised concern that the council unreasonably disputed that his planning application included an access through a wall into a council car park. We took independent planning advice and concluded that the council had not disputed that access arrangements were included in the application. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Lastly, Mr C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew permission for him to form the access in the wall, despite having granted others access. He said that the council failed to take account of information he provided them with, which he considers proves his right of access. We were satisfied that the council had taken Mr C's evidence into account. Who has title or right of access is not something that we can determine, and this issue would need to be pursued through legal channels. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a report of statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the EPA), which he made due to noise coming from a council owned car park adjacent to his home. The council had told him that they did not consider that the nature of the behaviour fell under the remit of the EPA. Mr C was not satisfied with the explanation provided for this and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. They considered that the council's position was unreasonable, confirming that there was a statutory duty to investigate any complaint of statutory nuisance, decide whether a statutory nuisance was occurring and, if it was, serve an abatement notice. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the council have now informally investigated the noise report.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined that he owed them rent arrears after leaving his tenancy. Mr C was part of a joint tenancy, having joined the existing tenancy of other people who lived in a council flat. Mr C said that the arrears had arisen due to council errors in the existing tenancy, such as charging for insurance that was not needed, and not notifying the existing tenants of a rent increase. We found no evidence that the existing tenants notified the council that they did not need insurance. We noted that all tenants were liable to pay rent at the increased rate and that the tenancy agreement was clear that when the other joint tenants left and Mr C remained at the property, the tenancy continued. The council's procedure, in relation to former tenants' arrears, stated that the remaining tenant was liable for all outstanding arrears. In this case, Mr C was the remaining tenant. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201701484 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C owned a flat in a tenement building. The council also owned flats in the building, and Mr C believed that a council tenant had damaged the communal front door and entry system. Mr C thought that the council were responsible for repairing the damage and covering the costs. He complained to us that the council had unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs. We found that no one actually witnessed who was responsible for the damage. The council explained to Mr C that, unless there were any witnesses, it was very difficult to prove who caused the damage. We saw no evidence, such as legislation or policy, to support Mr C's belief that the council were responsible for paying for damage to communal areas that was allegedly caused by one of their tenants. All owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council likely shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201705473 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's policy on kinship care allowances. She and her husband are kinship carers for their granddaughter and previously obtained a residency order. The council pays approved/formal kinship carers the same additional four week holiday allowance that is paid to foster carers. However, they do not pay this to previously approved/informal kinship carers, which is the category that Mrs C falls into. Mrs C feels that a council committee report proves that she should be paid the four week allowance, as it states that approved/informal kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence order (now known as a kinship care order). We made a number of enquiries to both the council and the Scottish Government. Although we were not satisfied by the council's initial response, they eventually provided a more robust justification for why they reached their decision within the existing legal framework. The Scottish Government also provided a far clearer explanation of their intentions than was contained in the letter detailing the funding agreement which led to the changes to kinship care allowances. They stated that the funding agreement only applied to regular weekly allowances and was intended to bring allowances for eligible kinship carers in line with foster carers. Therefore, local authorities had discretion to make additional payments as they saw fit. In addition to this, we saw no evidence to support the statement in the council's committee report which stated that kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence or kinship care order. On this basis, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we did provide feedback to the Scottish Government as they are currently carrying out a national review into kinship and foster care payment arrangements. Related reading View Decision Report 201705014 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) who is a council tenant. Mr C said that her property had been in a state of disrepair with issues including repeated boiler breakdowns, faulty electrics, persistent roof leaks and draughty windows. Mrs A had been reporting and complaining about these issues for a number of years but the council had only recently brought the property up to a reasonable state of repair. Mr C considered that the time taken to repair the property and provide a final response to Mrs A's complaints had been unreasonable. We found that Mrs A had been complaining to the council, about a number of similar repair issues, for several years. There were a number of repairs mentioned in the complaints correspondence which were not recorded on the council's repair log, meaning it was difficult to assess whether these were completed within a reasonable timescale. The council told us that they did not record the outcomes of their inspections. This meant that it was very difficult to assess the ongoing condition of the property or evidence whether or not the faults being reported persisted throughout the period in question, or only required repair later in the process due to damage or deterioration. We considered it was likely that there were unreasonable delays on the part of the council. Additionally, the reason we were unable to confirm this was due to insufficient record-keeping. We also found that the council's complaints handling had been unreasonable as they delayed in referring Mrs A to ourselves. Therefore, we upheld both of Mr C's complaints.