Source · SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)

East Renfrewshire Council

SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman) Not Upheld Reference 201102534 Sector Local Government Category maintenance and repair of roads Decided 01 October 2012

View East Renfrewshire Council scorecard

Full decision

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the condition of the road outside his home. He said there was an unreasonable delay between him making his complaint and repairs to the road being carried out. He also said he was unhappy about the council's response to his subsequent complaint about the standard of the repairs. In addition, Mr C complained that the council did not deal with his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found evidence showing that the council carried out the repairs 12 working days after Mr C complained, and ten working days after the defects were inspected. As the target repair time which the council aim to achieve is 8.5 days, we considered that carrying out the repair 1.5 days outwith the target was not unreasonable. We also obtained evidence which showed that the council inspected the repairs and determined that they were carried out appropriately. The fact that Mr C did not agree with this was not something we could look into as it is not our role to assess the standard of council repairs. As the evidence showed that the council carried out the repairs within a reasonable time and responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about the standard of the repairs, we did not uphold his complaint.

However, we were concerned that in their response, the council seemed uncertain about the target timescale for repair. Their initial response was silent on this point, they then said the target was 28 working days and finally concluded it was 8.5 working days. We were also concerned that their procedure did not appear to accurately reflect revised target timescales for urgent repairs. In addition, we were concerned that the council did not appear to have taken steps to look into Mr C's complaint that previously reported faults had not been repaired, or were not repaired properly. We accepted that the council are limited in terms of what they can do due to the passage of time, but they should have responded to Mr C on this point. We therefore, brought these matters to their attention.

On the matter of compliance with the council's complaints procedure, the evidence showed that on balance the council dealt with Mr C's complaint in accordance with procedure. We did not uphold this complaint.

Related reading

View Decision Report 201102534 as a PDF (11.63 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

View original on SPSO (Scottish Publ… website

Other decisions involving East Renfrewshire Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
201911240 01 Sep 2022 C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. C's neighbour was granted planning consent for an outbuilding in … Partly Upheld
201607207 01 Jan 2018 A solicitors firm complained on behalf of their client (Ms A) about the management of asbestos at a property she … Not Upheld
201605670 01 May 2017 Mr C reported problems with the behaviour of his neighbour, who is a private tenant, including a number of reports … Not Upheld
201602629 01 May 2017 Mr C was unhappy with the way the council handled a request for a non-material variation (NMV) to a planning … Partly Upheld
201507810 01 Feb 2017 Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them. … Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation