SPSO Individual Decisions

C is an independent advocate who complained on behalf of their client (A). Following social work involvement, A’s child (B) was placed with kinship carers. This was a voluntary arrangement, in terms of section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. After the relationship with kinship carers broke down, C said that A repeatedly informed social workers and said at meetings that they were no longer in agreement with the arrangement. A did not withdraw consent in writing or specifically say they withdrew consent, but A believed they did so by saying they were not in agreement with the local authority’s position. B was then placed with their other parent (D). A disagreed with that decision. C complained that the Children’s Reporter (a person who makes decisions to help young people who need care and protection) was not made aware that A was not in agreement with the kinship care plan or with the plan to place B with D. B had no contact with D for four years before being placed with them. C said that A repeatedly expressed their views and those of B in relation to not wanting to be placed with D, but that these were ignored. We took independent social work advice. We found that after the kinship care arrangement broke down, there followed a period of time during which B’s legal status was unclear. At this point the matter should have been referred back to the Children’s Reporter; this did not happen. We considered that it was incumbent on the council to ensure that there was absolute clarity regarding the legal status of B’s care and what A’s rights were. We found that the council did not do enough to satisfy this obligation or consider whether section 25 was still the most appropriate legislative framework to safeguard B. Taking all of the above into account, we upheld the complaint. We asked the council to apologise to A but made no further recommendations given significant learning already identified by the council.

Mr C manages a direct payment on behalf of his two grandchildren. When the direct payment was set up the council exercised their discretion and permitted Mr  C to employ family relatives as personal assistants with the agreement that he would begin recruitment for independent personal assistants. After some time, the council advised Mr C that he could no longer employ family members. The council also requested to observe the children in school as part of their social care assessment. Mr C complained that the council's policy regarding the employment of family members was unreasonable and and that they failed to explain their reason for visiting the children in school. Mr C also complained that the council did not properly follow their complaints procedure. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council's policy on the employment of family members was in line with national statutory guidance and that the council had acted reasonably in this regard. We also found that it was reasonable for the council to request to observe the children in school. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council did not contact Mr C to discuss his complaint nor did they respond within the required working timescale as stated in their complaint handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801293 as a PDF (23.97 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C complained to the council that they had failed to provide him with appropriate advice and support with respect to his housing and mental health concerns. In their response, the council explained their obligations with respect to housing matters and advised that, as Mr C had never presented as homeless or engaged with housing services, there was no service failing on their part. They acknowledged Mr C's circumstances and committed to provide a full assessment of Mr C's housing and mental health needs. Mr C was later evicted from his property and brought his complaint to us. We agreed with Mr C that we would consider the actions and response of the council following receipt of his complaint and full disclosure of his circumstances. We considered the council had taken steps to try and offer Mr C advice and assistance with respect to his housing circumstances. The council had followed up on concerns with regard to Mr C's mental health and had made arrangements for a mental health social worker to meet with Mr C. However, this appointment was cancelled by Mr C at late notice. We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps to respond to Mr C's concerns, assess his circumstances and offer advice and access to the services which may be available to him. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201703572 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council after her child (child A) returned from a school trip abroad badly sunburned, requiring a hospital stay. She complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that her child would not get sunburned, that reasonable action was not taken when the severity of child A's condition was established, and that her complaint had been handled unreasonably. We found that a full risk assessment had been carried out and that pupils were reminded several times a day to administer sun protection. We considered that the council's actions aimed at preventing pupils from getting sunburned were reasonable, even though they were not effective in preventing child A from becoming sunburned. We were critical of a decision to allow the child to wear shorts and no sun protection when their legs were uncomfortable. The council said child A was only exposed to 30 minutes of sunlight on that occasion. With hindsight, we considered this to have been a poor decision, but we noted that sunburn was not yet suspected at that point and the main concern was the child's comfort. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We found failings in the council's actions once the severity of the child's condition was known. Staff initially took advice from a pharmacist then later took the child to a local hospital. They took the advice of doctors at the hospital and also kept Mrs C and her husband informed until the group returned to the UK. We considered these steps to have been reasonable. However, the child was bandaged from thigh to toe and was unable to mobilise independently and in need of a wheelchair. The return journey home was 36 hours by coach. We considered that staff, who could see the condition child A was in, ought to have explored with Mrs C and her husband other options for getting child A home more quickly, taking into account the child's dignity, privacy and comfort. We upheld this aspect of the comp

Ms C, who is an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). When Ms A moved between local authority areas she was unhappy about aspects of how her new council had handled that transition. Complaints were raised on her behalf about this, and these were eventually determined by a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC made recommendations that the council accepted. However, Ms A was unhappy with how the council had handled her complaints and the actions they took to carry out the recommendations of the CRC. Ms C brought these complaints to us. We found that the council had not responded to a significant complaint that had been raised on Ms A's behalf and had not carried out the recommendations of the CRC in a reasonable way, or in the way they had told Ms A that they would. We found that they had not considered Ms A's situation at a specific meeting when they said they would, and that they did not inform Ms A that her case was not discussed at the meeting. In light of this, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Miss A). He said that the council had unreasonably failed to comply with its policy on restraint and physical intervention. He also complained that the council were unreasonably using a restraint and physical intervention policy which is not specific for children. Miss A was unhappy with how staff at her daughter's school had responded to an incident involving her daughter. In investigating the complaint, we received information from Miss A and the council about the incident, including statements from the staff involved and Miss A's daughter. The council also provided copies of their policies relating to behaviour management and physical restraint in schools. We found that the council's policies mentioned three stages of good practice to deal with a critical incident at a school and the potential need for physical intervention. We found that the act of restraint used towards Miss A's daughter was appropriate given the council's policy. However, there is a clear emphasis in the policy on avoiding or de-escalating a potential incident in the first place and we found that the council did not act reasonably in line with their policy to stop the incident taking place. We also found that there was a failure to document if Miss A's daughter was injured following the restraint, as is required by the council's policy. The council acknowledged that the preventative measures could have been better used and said that they have provided further training for the staff involved. We have asked for evidence of this training. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. The council agreed that the restraint and physical intervention policy is generic but stated it was applicable in any situation where challenging behaviour occurs. We found that, whilst the policy could be more child-specific, it does refer to risk-benefit assessments and care/education plans which will be specific to an individual's situation. We fel

Mr C was unhappy with the way in which the council had dealt with his complaint and so requested that it be dealt with by way of a Complaints Review Committee (CRC). This was in line with the council's social work policy and was acknowledged by them in May 2014. Mr C complained that, thereafter, the council failed to follow their stated procedure in that there was a delay and he did not receive a copy of the report produced. He also complained that officers acted unreasonably towards him by saying that he was pedantic and by trying to get him to withdraw his complaint. We found that although it took a while for a CRC to be held, this was for reasons outwith the council's control. However, there was a delay in issuing the decision to Mr C and contrary to their policy, he was not sent a copy of the final report. This part of his complaint was, therefore, upheld. We found no proof to confirm that Mr C had been called pedantic or that the council had tried to persuade him to abandon his complaint. It was clear that the council had given him choices about how to proceed, either by way of a hearing or on the basis of written submissions, and it was also clear that the final decision lay with Mr C.

Mr C said the council did not properly consider the local plan, or his objections, when approving a planning application for a nearby development. He also considered that the development did not comply with conditions on the planning approval, and was concerned that the council was not taking formal enforcement action. The council said the planning officer's report showed they had considered Mr C's objections and the local plan in determining the application. While the council agreed that parts of the development did not fully comply with the approved plans, they said they were taking action to address this. This action included works to improve road safety, as well as requesting a new planning application for parts of the development which had not been built according to the plan. However, the council said they would not consider formal enforcement action until the development was complete (including the approved amendments). The development was completed during our investigation, and the council then issued a formal enforcement notice. After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had considered all of Mr C's objections and the local plan in determining the application. In relation to enforcement, the adviser said it was reasonable for the council to wait until the development was fully completed before considering formal action. The adviser also explained that the council has a broad discretion in deciding what (if any) enforcement action to take and, therefore, we found the council did not unreasonably fail to enforce the planning conditions. However, we found that on one occasion the council delayed unreasonably in following up action they told Mr C they would take. We also found that one of the planning conditions was unclearly written, and the council acted inconsistently in deciding that the condition was met, although the actual works it specified had not been carried out.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take steps to make her child feel safe at school following a meeting that had been arranged at the school to offer support to them both. Mrs C said that she had raised concerns at this meeting and an earlier meeting with a teacher that her child was being bullied. She said that she had asked that her child was monitored at break and lunchtime, but the council failed to put this in place. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mrs C had raised concerns about bullying at either of the meetings or that she had asked for her child to be monitored. Staff who attended the meetings said that they did not recall this being discussed and it was not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes referred to two action points that were to be taken forward, but these were not in relation to bullying. We found that the council had taken action to implement these two points after the meeting. Related reading View Decision Report 201305739 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he had to pay a service charge while he was in temporary accommodation. He also complained that the council did not process his medical assessment form in line with their procedure, and did not communicate properly with him about an offer of housing. The council said that the service charge was in line with their policy and is for maintaining temporary accommodation, which has a higher turnover than the main housing stock. They said that they had responded to Mr C about his medical assessment application and explained how medical points are awarded. They also apologised for not being proactive in contacting him about his offer of accommodation. As we found that the service charge was in line with the council's policy, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about this. The level of the charge is a discretionary decision for the council to make. However, we found that the council took longer than the four weeks specified in their policy to process his medical assessment application and did not let him know that there was a delay, so we upheld that complaint. We also found that they had failed to correctly categorise the property Mr C was offered, as empty (void) properties such as that one, which need work that will take more than 15 working days should be recorded as 'not offerable'. They had also allowed Mr C to accept the offer as 'subject to viewing' which contravened their void management procedure. In light of these findings, we also upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's communication.

Mr C complained about a staircase that his neighbour erected near their mutual property boundary. He said that the original plans showed a staircase at the other end of the building, to which he did not object. Mr C told us that he now feels that he has no privacy because, although there is a high wall between him and his neighbour, his neighbour was allowed to build above it. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who found no concerns about the original decision, or the decision to treat this change as a non-material variation to the plans. We explained to Mr C that planning authorities make decisions on a wide range of planning matters, and have the right to decide on all of these by exercising their discretion. Our role is to consider the council's handling of the matter. In this case we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure on the part of the council, and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403846 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the council's planning enforcement team about tree pruning that had taken place at a property in the conservation area where he lives. The council contacted the person who had had the trees pruned, who then took steps to mitigate this. The council decided that this was satisfactory, and took no further action. Mr C was unhappy as he thought that the council should have taken enforcement action. We took advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the council's actions in responding to this matter were reasonable. He also said that in a conservation area, while there is a presumption in favour of preserving trees, they are not automatically protected. As we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure by the council, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201302526 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

After Mrs C began to extend the height of a fence in her garden, the planning department contacted her and explained that planning permission was required to do this. Mrs C said, however, that the council told her on more than one occasion that they could see no reason why planning permission would be refused. She applied for planning permission but this was refused some four months later. Mrs C was unhappy about the delay in reaching a decision on her application, and said that she was not kept properly informed and that she was given incorrect information about the likelihood of the application being granted. She complained to us that the council's handling of her application was unreasonable. After carefully reviewing the relevant paperwork, we concluded that although the application could have been dealt with more quickly, when no decision had been made within two months, Mrs C had the right to appeal about the fact that her application had not been determined. We noted that the council had told her agent about this. The council had also accepted that she was not kept properly informed about progress, and had apologised. We did not see any evidence to confirm one way or another whether Mrs C was actually given incorrect information prior to her application being submitted. Having taken all this into account, on balance, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201303149 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

When Mr C was sent to prison, he terminated his council tenancy and gave the council a mandate to dispose of his personal property to reduce an amount of money that he owed them. The council put a number of items up for sale in a local auction house, and put the net proceeds towards Mr C’s rent arrears, but he still owed council tax. After Mr C was released from prison, he returned to the area and shortly afterwards the council sent him a statement of his council tax arrears. Mr C then made an information request about the disposal of his property. He had compiled an inventory from memory and believed that his property had been sold for an eighth of its value. After the council responded to his information request he complained to them, then to us, that the process used in disposing of his property was inappropriate. We found that the council had disposed of Mr C’s property before the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and related regulations came into effect. As he terminated the tenancy and did not abandon it, the council had not needed to compile an inventory of his belongings. Our investigation also found that the terms of Mr C’s mandate to the council were wide ranging and unequivocal. However, we upheld his complaint, as we took the view that they should have written to him in prison to account for the discharge of his mandate, advised him of the proceeds of the sale and told him that these had not been enough to clear his debts.

After his partner died, Mr C notified the council of this change in his circumstances. He complained to us that it was then discovered that there had been an error in the handling of his benefit claims, which meant that for over a year he had been in receipt of a payment that he was not due. When he brought his complaint to us, the council had investigated the matter, and we were satisfied that this had been undertaken fully, so we decided reinvestigation of the circumstances behind the error was not required. However, Mr C told us that he was still unhappy because he believed he missed out on the opportunity to apply for a discretionary housing payment and of receiving council tax benefit for a period of four months, and because he had received a number of notices from the council with different information about what he owed. When the council investigated Mr C's complaint, they upheld it and found that a longstanding error in recording had resulted in him receiving an overpayment of benefit. They had apologised to him for this, and had said that they would not ask him to repay the benefit paid in error. The council also told him that they would improve their processes and procedures to prevent a repeat. Our investigation found that, despite this, Mr C had received notice shortly afterwards that his rent account was in arrears and that the council were asking him to repay an overpayment of council tax benefit from the date that the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) told them of a further change in his benefit entitlement. When we investigated, we found the situation very confusing and we were not surprised that Mr C had been similarly affected. We established that he had not missed out on a discretionary housing payment, as he had feared, because the rent arrears he had were not due to council error but a more recent change in his benefit entitlement, but we found that the council had failed to consider his request for this. We also found that it was un

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a large scale dairy milking facility near his home. He said that the council had dealt with the application in a similar to way to that of a domestic planning application, which he did not consider appropriate given the scale of the facility. He was also of the view that the council had failed to properly assess the impact, in terms of noise, visibility and odour, that the development would have on his property. He also complained that the council did not notify him about the planning application. Our investigation found that, as his property did not directly border the development, the council were not required to notify him of the application. We also found that they advertised it in the local paper, fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of the planning regulations. The planning department had also consulted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and their own environmental health department before granting consent. We noted that the developer had sought permission for a number of planning applications, each of which was of a scale which would be considered a local development in planning terms. As we found no evidence to suggest that the council had acted outwith their own procedures or legal responsibilities, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201204961 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had been a council tenant, but when his tenancy was terminated he was unable to store his belongings. The council had a statutory duty to protect his property as he was considered homeless, so they arranged for this to be packed up and taken into storage. They told him that they would pay the storage costs for him, but he would be liable to repay these when he was able to do so. Mr C was given a new council tenancy some five months later, and the council had the property taken out of storage and delivered to him. They also paid the fees for this, then re-charged all the costs to him. Mr C disputed the charges, saying that they were more than the fees quoted on the agreement, and queried the invoice from the removal firm that delivered the property to him. He had contacted the firm and was quoted a fee of £55 per hour and was told the job would probably only have taken about three hours. The council had charged him £291.50. Our investigation found that the amounts re-charged to Mr C were the amounts the council had paid on his behalf. The agreement made it clear that the fees quoted were based on using one storage unit, but Mr C's property had taken more space than that. Similarly, the invoice from the removal firm added up to four hours work at the rate quoted to Mr C, plus VAT and insurance. It is not for us to decide if the amount charged by the firm was correct and we considered it reasonable for the council to re-charge Mr C for what they had paid on his behalf. We also noted that the legislation covering such matters allows for re-charging. Mr C also complained that some of his property was missing. Some was found when Mr C brought this to the council's attention. Some property was damaged and the council had accepted Mr C's estimate of replacement costs and reduced the amount he owed them by this amount. Some items were not found but did not appear on the inventory taken when Mr C's property was packed up. We could not find out what had hap

Mr C complained that when planning permission was sought for a development beside his property, the council did not properly take into account his representations against the application. We did not, however, investigate the complaint, as we were unable to agree with Mr C the wording of the complaint he wanted us to pursue or the outcome he was seeking. Related reading View Decision Report 201201317 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C told us that following the early birth of her baby, who has disabilities, she was supported by a social worker who provided a range of helpful information and advice. Mrs C said that the social worker told her that costs for travel to work, meals and childcare could be deducted from her earnings when calculating the upper earnings threshold for carer's allowance. Mrs C made a claim for carer's allowance when she started working. Some six years later her claim was reviewed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Mrs C was told that she was not entitled to deduct expenses for meals and travel to work from her earnings and that she had earned more than she was entitled to while claiming carer's allowance. Mrs C was told that she had to pay back £14,888 in overpaid carer's allowance. Mrs C complained that the council had provided incorrect advice. The council said that they were not providers of expert advice in relation to DWP benefit claims. They said that they provided support, in good faith, to help people navigate their way through systems which could be complex. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, as the records held by the council confirmed that advice and support, including advice in respect of benefit entitlement, had been provided but there was no evidence that specific and incorrect advice about earnings disregards had been given. As there was no evidence to show whether the council had provided incorrect advice we could not substantiate the complaint. We did, however, make a recommendation to try to make the council's responsibilities clearer to clients in future.

Mr C obtained a building warrant for a new double garage and bed and breakfast accommodation. Around 18 months later he found that the building warrant was based on the council's approval of plans for an earlier, incorrect foundation slab. When trying to resolve matters, Mr C experienced delays. He complained that the council made further administrative errors and provided conflicting information as he tried to proceed with his development. The council accepted and apologised that they stamped the wrong plans for the development. This error resulted in a building warrant being based on drawings that were different to the work that would be carried out. To resolve this, the council suggested that Mr C resubmit the correct plans as part of a forthcoming amendment of warrant application. We found that this was a simple administrative error, but felt that the council's proposed solution contributed to Mr C's problems with progressing the work. Had the stamping mistake been dealt with separately from the amendment application, he would have been able to progress with construction. We found no evidence to confirm Mr C's assertion that the council lost plans for his building warrant application. However, we found that they made administrative mistakes on two occasions when providing stamped copies of plans for the building warrant's approval. Mr C also complained that the council were responsible for unacceptable delays when dealing with his application for amendments to his plans. We did not find this to be the case. We were satisfied that delays were caused by the time taken to verify the appropriateness of an infiltration system Mr C had installed. We found that they had correctly followed their procedures in doing so. Mr C sought to amend his plans so that a link door between his existing property and the new bed and breakfast accommodation was sealed. He complained that the council provided conflicting information to him and his architect about the feasibility of seal

Mr C was concerned that the council decided not to fund repairs to his local private road (also known as an unadopted road). He complained that the predecessor council had, in 1988, entered into an agreement with residents to carry out surface repairs to these roads. He was of the view that the current council should honour this earlier agreement. The council responded that they had no legal duty to maintain private unadopted roads and advised that, due to budgetary pressures, they had decided to reduce the budget for the maintenance of private unadopted roads to zero for year 2011/12. Our investigation considered Mr C's concerns and confirmed that the council does not have a duty to maintain these private roads in terms of their responsibilities under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. We also took the view that, although a policy statement was produced in 1988 detailing how any budget for maintenance of unadopted roads would be distributed, the council were entitled to make decisions in terms of their overall budget. They were, therefore, within their rights in deciding to reduce this maintenance budget to zero. Related reading View Decision Report 201104093 as a PDF (16.68 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's trading standards department. He said that they had told him to obtain a specialist report on a newly installed door that he said was faulty and that this would be forwarded to the company concerned. Mr C later complained that the council reneged on their agreement to send the report. He said that as a result, it took longer to resolve matters and that he was not reimbursed the cost of the report. He also complained about the council's complaints handling, saying that the acting chief executive failed to respond properly to his concerns and left out important details. Our investigation confirmed that the council officer had not send the report as he indicated he would. This was because he found out that the company had offered to send a representative from the manufacturers to inspect the door. He found this out at the same time he received the report from Mr C and took the view that it would be more appropriate to follow the manufacturer route. While this was a decision for him to take, we took the view that he should have told Mr C about it. We found that the advice given to Mr C by trading standards staff was sound at the time it was given and that despite his claim that he was told to postpone submitting a claim for the cost of the report, there was no evidence to suggest this. Although Mr C was unhappy with the acting chief executive's response, we found that he had replied in detail and had addressed Mr C's concerns. While Mr C did not agree with the terms of the response that does not mean that it was inappropriate. Related reading View Decision Report 201102951 as a PDF (17.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C purchased a housing plot in a rural location from a landowner in 1996 and the contract of sale included a right of pre-emption to the landowner should she decide to sell, and obligations regarding contributing to works on an access track and for water supplied by the landowner to the site. Mrs C's plans to build did not materialise and in 2008 she sought to sell. When the landowner became aware of this, he offered to make a quick decision on exercising his right of pre-emption in return for a cheque for a particular sum in relation to works to the track. Delay would lead to a recalculation of the amount owed. After various solicitors letters, the amount sought by the landowner tripled. The landowner also threatened to open a quarry exercising permitted development rights. Mrs C refused to pay, the landowner served an inhibition on sale, and the matter went to court. The decision in 2010 was on balance in Mrs C's favour. When Mrs C first approached the council in 2008, she was given advice by trading standards on the water charges. When she contacted them again when matters were before the courts, she was informed that she should await the outcome of those proceedings. After contacting the council in the latter part of 2010, trading standards arranged for various witness statements to be taken and then, on seeking the advice of the council's legal section they decided they could take no action as the matter was too old. Mrs C made four allegations against the council, three relating to trading standards and one relating to planning. At the final stage of the council's consideration of the matter they accepted that the service they provided in relation to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 was flawed and two of Mrs C's complaints were upheld. A third complaint relating to the Enterprise Act 2002 was not upheld. While the council's planning service correctly informed Mrs C that they would not take action on a threat, as opposed to a brea

Ms C made a complaint about a statement made by a council officer in a committee meeting with councillors. The statement was that there was an imminent announcement which could influence the committee's decision. Ms C claimed that the council was unable to substantiate the statement and that it had misled councillors. Following review of the relevant paperwork, the webcast of the council meeting and the council's responses to Ms C's correspondence, we decided that it was reasonable for the council to have expected that the announcement may have contained information that could have influenced the councillors' decision and we could understand why, in the circumstances of the case, the council would want to ensure that they made their decision having considered all the available information. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100421 as a PDF (13.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was the owner of a private house. When he fell behind with mortgage payments, the lender threatened repossession. Mr C approached the council in July 2009. He told them that he understood his lender would repossess his home within four weeks, and submitted a housing application. He was initially given 100 points for underoccupation. He continued to live in his home and, before the court case for repossession in April 2010, he entered into a short tenancy agreement for a private let. He moved out of his home after the court case but still sought council housing. From 24 May 2010 the council revised their housing policy, and as a result Mr C lost his underoccupation points. He complained that the council had failed to offer him accommodation although he was homeless, and refused to give him priority points as given at the start of his application. Our investigation found that when Mr C first sought rehousing in July 2009, and in March 2010 when he secured a private let before the court case, the council were entitled to regard him as not homeless. The council were also entitled to revise their policy. In the period prior to May 2010, Mr C's points were insufficient to warrant an offer of rehousing. When this report was first published on 21 September 2011, it was incorrectly categorised as being about The Moray Council. This was due to an administrative error which we discovered on 22 September 2011, and for which we apologise. Related reading View Decision Report 201002431 as a PDF (15.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018