Wednesday 21 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision Report 201604646

  • Case ref:
    201604646
  • Date:
    June 2017
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    statutory notices

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's management of works required to be carried out to his property under the terms of three statutory notices. He further complained that they failed to provide detailed invoices, did not respond to his queries, overcharged him, and failed to deal with his complaints about these matters appropriately.

Mr C's complaints were a number of many made over recent years to the council about statutory notice work that had been carried out . In response, the council established a new complaints process to deal specifically with statutory notice complaints. This included a sample review by an external company to provide independent advice. Mr C's complaints went through this process and a number of shortcomings were found. Because of this, his invoices were greatly reduced and administration costs and VAT were waived. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to SPSO.

We found that the council had failed to manage the contracts appropriately and had previously charged him for work that had not been carried out. However, they had since taken action to address these matters and had reissued correct invoices. We found no evidence that Mr C's complaint was handled unreasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Updated: March 13, 2018