| Publishing organisation: | Scottish Public Services Ombudsman |
| Topic: | Repairs |
| Determination: | Partly upheld |
| Tenure: | Home owner |
Organisation:
| City of Edinburgh Council |
| Country of relevance: | England |
| Report link: | Click here to view this document |
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the administration by The City of Edinburgh 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.
That notice was superseded in August 2002 by a more detailed notice served on those 11 owners and by another notice served on the 22 owners of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 X Street. Mr and Mrs C negotiated to sell their flat in mid 2003 in advance of the works commencing. Mr C made his own enquiries at that time as to what the cost of the works was likely to be. A retention was made of part of the purchase price.
The works took several years to organise and complete and accounts were not issued to the owners for their proportionate shares until February 2008.
The outturn cost was some six times greater than the sum Mr and Mrs C had anticipated in mid 2003. They considered that The City of Edinburgh Council's actions and inaction had contributed to the escalation in the cost of the works. Mr C complained to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman on 4 September 2008.
Determination
(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).
The Ombudsman recommended 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’s Director of Development informed the Ombudsman that the Council accepted the recommendation to commute part of the administration charge and had authorised his staff to take this to a suitable conclusion.
(b) Council officers sought to mislead Mr C by maintaining that renewals or replacements constituted general repair work (not upheld).
The Ombudsman observed that if Mr C considered that the Council had exceeded their powers to his detriment in instructing works which they had no power to instruct, then that was a matter which would ultimately require to be tested in the courts. The Ombudsman further emphasised that the essence of this complaint was a disagreement between Mr C and the Council about whether renewals or replacements can properly be considered to be repairs.