Source · SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)

Aberdeen City Council

SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman) Upheld Reference 202401558 Sector Local Government Category Policy / administration Decided 01 March 2025

View Aberdeen City Council scorecard

Full decision

Summary

C complained about the council’s handling of communal repairs at a tenement in which C owned a property. Extensive work was required following a fire. The council owned the majority of properties in the building and took the lead in arranging and managing the work. During the work to repair the fire damage, extensive dry rot was identified. Work was completed around four years after the fire.

The invoice C received from the council for the dry rot works was approximately £15,000 over what C had expected to pay, based on the estimates for work given two years prior. C complained about the council’s management of the repairs, including their communication.

We found that the council’s communication with C during the period of works and in respect of the increasing costs was unreasonable. The council also failed to follow their own processes or act in line with their obligations under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. The final invoicing included substantial costs for which C was not liable, and which should not have been included in the invoice. The council also failed to notify C of the costs of an emergency repair to the roof following a storm within a reasonable period of time, resulting in C missing the opportunity to submit an insurance claim for the costs.

Overall, we found that the council’s management of communal repairs was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint. We considered that regardless of communication issues and delays, the costs would likely have been incurred and therefore are duly payable by C. However, given the multiple failings in relation to communication and administration, we recommended that the council refund the administration fee to C.

C also complained about the council's handling of their complaint. We found that the council’s complaint handling was unreasonable. The council failed to identify C’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint, failed to respond within a reasonable timescale or provide timely updates, misinterpreted C’s complaints, and made contradictory statements in the complaint response. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to C for the failure to reasonably manage the communal repairs and the failure to reasonably handle C's complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

Clarify whether the scaffold and site establishment costs were charged to C, and consider whether these funds should be reimbursed.

The council should make a financial payment to C of £2,278, the equivalent of the 7% administration fee charged by the council for these works, in recognition of the poor standard of administration and failure to act in line with their responsibilities under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 when arranging for these repairs to be carried out.

What we said should change to put things right in future: The council should manage repairs carried out under the terms of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 in line with their obligations. When managing repairs, the council should ensure tenants and homeowners are updated of the progress of the project regularly, particularly where the scope of the works and the costs escalate.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: Complaint handling should be in line with the Model Complaint Handling Procedures. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at  HYPERLINK "https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses" https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses .

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Related reading

View Decision Report 202401558 as a PDF (30.5 KB) Updated: March 19, 2025

View original on SPSO (Scottish Publ… website

Other decisions involving Aberdeen City Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
202208569 01 Dec 2024 C and their autistic child took up their tenancy, having been offered the property following assessment for priority for allocation. … Partly Upheld
202209886 01 Nov 2024 C complained that the council and school staff failed to reasonably respond or act when C told them about domestic … Upheld
202302784 01 Oct 2024 C complained about communication from the council's social work department relating to C’s involvement in the Looked After Child (LAC) … Not Upheld
202106027 01 Jun 2024 C complained about the council’s handling of a planning application. C’s next door neighbour made a retrospective application for planning … Upheld
202100411 01 Feb 2024 C complained that the council had failed to follow the correct procedures for issuing a building warrant to a neighbouring … Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation