Local Government

Summary

Ms C, who is a GP, complained that the council failed to communicate with her about their handling of a child protection matter that she had raised with a head teacher. We found that the council had acted reasonably in referring Ms C to the body leading the investigation and that their approach to information sharing was in line with the guidance. We were satisfied that in the circumstances the council were correct not to share information not least because it was not clear why Ms C wanted it or what the information would be used for.

We found that the council had responded in a timeous way to Ms C’s complaint. Although Ms C felt that the council should have continued to engage with her further correspondence at the end of the complaints process, we did not agree, not least because the prospect of resolving matters to her satisfaction was remote.

Summary

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.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make an appropriate apology; and
• provide Mr C with a copy of the final report as submitted.

Summary

Mr C complained about the time taken to install a warning sign on the road near his home, about the council's communication with him, and their handling of his complaint.

We looked at the council's file on Mr C's complaints and concluded that, in the circumstances, they had taken an unreasonable time to install the sign (it had taken eight months from the date it was agreed that the sign should be installed). The council failed to respond to Mr C's requests for progress updates or took an unreasonable time to do so, and they did not give him a detailed explanation for the delay in installing the sign, which he specifically asked for. We also found that the council failed to follow the complaints procedure, and their responses to him did not always include clear apologies. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence of action taken to prevent the incorrect prioritisation of road sign requests;
• provide us with evidence of improvements made in record-keeping and task handover management;
• refresh their understanding of the complaints procedure;
• reflect on the handling of stage 1 of Mr C's complaint, taking account of the complaints procedure; and
• familiarise themselves with our guidance on apology.

Summary

Miss C and Mr C complained about how the council had processed their council tax and how they had communicated with them about their liability and payments. Miss C and Mr C also complained about how the council responded to their complaint.

Miss C and Mr C missed two council tax payments and on each occasion the council sent them reminder notices. They missed a third payment, and the council passed the debt to a debt management partner (DMP) for collection.

We found that the council had explained the amounts Miss C and Mr C would owe and had set out a payment schedule of when to pay. We also noted the council had appropriately processed the payments they had made. We therefore did not uphold these complaints.

However, we found the council had not used accurate figures in the response to Miss and Mr C's complaint. They also failed to explain that the outstanding amount was from a charge levied by the DMP, over and above the council tax owed. Both of these things had caused confusion and we upheld this complaint.

Furthermore, we noted the council had not provided copies of information held by their DMP, as we would expect, and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the error identified;
• feed back to relevant staff the outcome of this decision, particularly regarding the importance of explaining all relevant charges; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of providing all relevant documents to us, including those they can source from external contractors.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council after waiting over a year for repairs to the front door of his council tenancy. At the time he first approached us the repairs had still not been completed and the council had advised him that this was due to numerous issues regarding door suppliers, two of whom had ceased trading in the last year. The repairs took place during our investigation, 17 months after they were first reported.

In response to our enquiries, the council accepted that the suppliers going out of business did not justify the length of time Mr C had waited for the repairs. They stated that there had also been a number of errors of communication and monitoring on their part, contributing to the delays. As a result of this, they committed to implementing new systems to avoid similar mistakes in future.

On investigation, we found that, whilst some of the delays were outwith the council's control, the majority had been caused by poor administrative handling on their part. We also found that they had failed in some of their duties in relation to the Right to Repair scheme. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the additional failings identified by our investigation;
• offer Mr C the maximum compensation of £100 available under the Right to Repair scheme; and
• remind relevant staff of the council's responsibilities under the Right to Repair scheme.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council after they forcibly entered his property whilst attempting to stop a leak reported by his downstairs neighbour. After the council turned off the water to Mr C's property, his neighbour reported that the leak had slowed and then stopped.

This led the council to advise that Mr C should seek the services of a plumber to inspect his property for the source of the leak. He did this but the plumber was unable to locate any leak and concluded that the council's assessment that the leak originated in his property was incorrect. As a result of this, the council agreed to waive their recovery of the costs of entering his property but Mr C was unhappy that they refused to pay the insurance excess he had to pay as a result of what he considered to be unnecessary inspection work.

On investigation, we considered that, based on the information available to the council at the time, their assessment that the leak originated in his property had been reasonable. They had followed their procedures in entering Mr C's property and turning off the water, and we found their agreement to waive their recovery of costs to be good practice in the circumstances. We did not deem it to be reasonable to expect them to pay Mr C's insurance excess, as we considered he had a responsibility to ensure that his property was not the source of the leak.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to keep accurate information about his council tax account. During our investigation, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him about an offer the council had made to try to resolve the complaint. We had no option but to close our file on his case.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the council administered a statutory notice served on her and her husband (Mr C)'s property. In particular, she was concerned about the tendering process followed by the council, by their failure to seek listed building consent for the works, and their failure to apply for a grant for the works. Additionally, Mrs C was concerned that they had failed to take into account her husband's comments about the need for the works at the time of the initial inspection. Finally, she was concerned about the time it took for the council to issue the final invoice.

We found that the council did follow the required process when appointing contractors to carry out the work. We noted that listed building consent would not be required for these works and that the council had, indeed, applied for grants to contribute to the costs of the work. The grant application was refused by the funder. We had no documented records of Mr C's comments on the works required but, notwithstanding this, any dissatisfaction with the level of works included in the notice is a matter which should be appealed to the sheriff.

A significant level of works were, however, carried out to the property which were not included in the statutory notice. As part of a review of the statutory notice process, this significant additional work was noted and was deducted from the final invoice. As this review took a considerable amount of time, there was a very significant delay in issuing the final invoice. As a result of the mistakes in the invoicing, the inclusion of works not contained in the statutory notice and the significant delay in issuing the invoice, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations to the council as they arranged for this matter to be independently reviewed and suitable remedial action was taken.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a statutory notice issued for repairs to her property. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to inform her that the cost of the repairs had increased from the initial estimate. She also complained that the council had allowed the cost of these works to increase unreasonably; that they had unreasonably carried out works not detailed in the statutory notice; and that they had delayed in issuing the final invoice for the works carried out.

We were concerned that the council were unable to provide documentary evidence that the owners were kept advised of any cost increase in relation to the works, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation. However, during our investigation we found no evidence that the council allowed the costs of the works to increase unreasonably. We found that they had explained that the initial estimate had been prepared following a non-intrusive ground survey and the cost increase had been caused by a more accurate assessment and measurement of the scale of the required repairs. We also found no evidence that the council had carried out works that were not subject to the statutory notice which had been issued.

While we were concerned that the council had delayed in issuing the final invoice we found no evidence that the final account had increased as a result of this delay. We were also mindful that the delay had been accepted by the council and they had apologised to Mrs C for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council about a statutory notice on his property. His complaint was reviewed by consultants acting on behalf of the council. He complained to us that the investigation process, as instructed by the council and carried out by the consultant, was not independent, thorough or fair. Mr C also complained to us that the council had not appropriately explained and documented the amount he was charged.

We found that the project that was subject to the statutory notice had been fully reviewed by the consultant and a sizeable adjustment had been made to the final bill. The council had not therefore acted unreasonably. Further, we found that the charges had been appropriately explained and documented and we were satisfied that Mr C received all of the information the council had provided to other owners in a similar position. In the absence of evidence that this was not the case or that the council had not followed usual practice in explaining and documenting their charges to Mr C, we did not have grounds to determine that the council acted unreasonably, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.