Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the administration by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) of works instructed in consequence of statutory notices served under section 24(1) of the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Those notices were served on Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) and other owners in their tenement building in 2001 and 2002. Mr and Mrs C decided to sell their flat in 2003. Mr C sought to establish the possible cost of the works necessitated by the statutory notices before concluding a sale. From information he obtained in 2003, Mr C anticipated that their share of the projected costs would be of the order of £2,800, when their share of the outcome costs was over £17,000. Mr C believed that the Council failed properly to administer the works to Mr and Mrs C's considerable financial disadvantage.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the Council too broadly defined the works required, instructed significantly different work than set out in the notices, included extensive renewal and rebuilding instead of repair and limited replacement, and allowed additional work of betterment/improvement (partially upheld); and
- (b) Council officers sought to mislead Mr C by maintaining that renewals or replacements constituted general repair work (not upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the extent that they were responsible for the delays and increase in contract price and commute part of their administration charge.
The Council have accepted the recommendation to commute part of the administration charge and had authorised his staff to take this to a suitable conclusion.