Text from Stage 2 Response to RAAC Concerns

We

Dear Mr Chowdhry,

 

Thank you for your complaint dated 23 September 2026 concerning private homeowners affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in Tillicoultry.

 

I have investigated your complaint at Stage 2 of the Council’s Complaints Handling Procedure. I considered the complaint correspondence, Council reports of November 2023 and June 2025, the latest officer briefing, relevant correspondence and further information provided by officers.

 

I recognise the exceptional and prolonged effect this situation has had on affected owners. The loss of the use of a home, continuing financial commitments and uncertainty have caused significant practical, financial and emotional pressure.

 

Background

 

RAAC was identified in Council housing assets in autumn 2023. Three mixed-tenure blocks containing 30 properties were evacuated after the structural engineer assessed the RAAC roof panels as critical. The Council owns 19 flats and 11 are privately owned. A further 72 properties in seven blocks contain RAAC assessed as suitable for management and monitoring.

 

Since evacuation, the Council has incurred costs for temporary accommodation, recovery and storage of belongings, security, inspections and continuing management. The November 2023 report confirmed there was no allocated RAAC budget and no indication then that government financial assistance would be available.

 

The Council undertook a technical options appraisal. In June 2025, Council approved progression of roof replacement options and authorised voluntary acquisition negotiations. Owners may pursue voluntary sale to the Council or participate in repairs and meet their appropriate share of costs.

 

1. Review of Additional Financial Assistance

 

Issue raised. You state that a commitment was made to consider funding from elsewhere within the Council, but no substantive account was provided.

 

 

 

 

 

Investigation findings

 

Kevin Wells raised the issue directly with the Chief Finance Officer and considered whether funding could be identified outside Housing. No available budget was identified because of considerable pressures across all Council services and the continuing budget deficit. The possibility was considered, but no lawful and financially sustainable source for additional payments was found. The Council has also absorbed removal, storage, security, inspection, management and valuation costs, estimated at approximately £5,000 to £6,000 per owner. This is absorbed expenditure, not an additional cash payment.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Partially upheld

Senior financial consideration took place, but the outcome was not communicated sufficiently clearly or promptly.

 

2. The £5,000 Figure and Additional Support

 

Issue raised. You question whether a proposed £5,000 payment reflects continuing mortgage, insurance and other costs.

 

Investigation findings

 

The evidence does not establish that the Council approved or offered an additional £5,000 cash payment. The figure arose from sundry expenditure absorbed by the Council. Support also included RICS valuations, recovery and storage of belongings, housing assistance where owners presented as homeless, a legal-cost contribution, staged payment arrangements and consideration of Council financing. These steps do not reimburse wider personal losses, but no further Council funding source was identified.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Not upheld

The £5,000 figure was not an approved cash payment. Future correspondence should distinguish absorbed expenditure, assistance and direct payments.

 

3. Communication of 12 January 2026

 

Issue raised. You raise concerns about advice that a deadline should be considered suspended and a later indication that the officer lacked authority.

 

Investigation findings

Homeowners were entitled to understand the written communication as confirmation of suspension. The wording should have been authorised before issue or expressed as pending approval. Any contrary management view should have been clarified promptly. The communication created a reasonable expectation that the deadline would not be enforced while further work was completed, although it did not establish entitlement to consequential-cost reimbursement.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Upheld

The communication was insufficiently clear and was not corrected promptly enough. I apologise. Future deadline communications must state approval status and required action.

 

 

4. VAT on Remedial Works

 

Issue raised. You state that owners cannot make an informed choice without confirmed VAT treatment.

 

Investigation findings

 

The Council sought specialist advice, but a definitive rate could not be confirmed because treatment depends on qualifying circumstances, the work and contractual arrangements. Figures used the maximum potential rate of 20% to show the highest exposure. The provider must apply the proper treatment, and confirmed relief or reduction should be reflected in the owner’s final amount.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Not upheld

The Council sought advice and disclosed the maximum exposure. Each owner must make their own enquiries with HMRC or a VAT specialist if they believe they qualify for a reduction in the VAT position to recover these costs.  This is not an action that the Council can take. The complexity of VAT was relayed again at the 3^rd September meeting . 

 

5. Funding for Render Works

 

Issue raised. You challenge the statement that no grant or other funding is available for render works.

 

Investigation findings

 

Rendering was considered within the building-fabric option. HRA funding may be used for Council housing stock, but legislative and financial restrictions apply to funding costs attributable to private owners or landlords. The Chief Finance Officer discussion identified no other available Council budget because of significant pressures and the ongoing deficit.

 

Individual owners are able to seek out any other potential funding sources independently from the Council, which may not be known or available to the Council.

 

Decision and reasons

.

Finding: Partially upheld

The position was considered, but the explanation did not clearly distinguish external grants, HRA restrictions, the Council’s own share and wider budget consideration.

 

6. Engagement with the Scottish Government

 

Issue raised. You seek greater transparency about engagement and attempts to secure support.

 

Investigation findings

 

Council reports record regular updates to the Scottish Government, Scottish Housing Regulator, COSLA and ALACHO, involvement in the cross-sector working group, advocacy for a national support fund, and continued participation and information-sharing.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Not upheld

The evidence demonstrates sustained national engagement. Owners should be informed when it produces a material change.

 

 

 

7. Actions Following the September 2026 Meeting

 

Issue raised. You state that actions and timescales were not delivered or reported clearly.

 

Investigation findings

 

Officers issued property-specific information on sale and repair options, valuations, costs, legal contribution, Heads of Terms, maximum VAT, financing and individual meetings. Staged payments were offered. Additional support was discussed with the Chief Finance Officer, but no budget was available. The evidence does not show that owners received one consolidated action log.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Partially upheld

Substantive actions progressed, but separate communications made overall progress harder to follow.

 

8. Communication and Transparency

 

Issue raised. You say important information was not sufficiently clear or timely

 

Investigation findings

 

There was substantial engagement through letters, calls, texts, meetings, appointments, a webpage, valuations and financial information. However, ambiguity around the January deadline, £5,000 figure, VAT, render funding and the Chief Finance Officer discussion contributed to uncertainty.

 

Decision and reasons

 

Finding: Partially upheld

The Council engaged regularly, but important information was not brought together or explained with sufficient clarity. I apologise.

 

Overall Findings

 

Complaint area	Finding	Required action / remedy
Other Council budgets	Partially upheld	Communicate CFO review outcome.
£5,000 payment	Not upheld	Clarify absorbed expenditure.
12 January communication	Upheld	Apology and stronger approvals.
VAT	Not upheld	Provide final VAT breakdown.
Render funding	Partially upheld	Explain funding restrictions.
Government engagement	Not upheld	Continue material updates.
September actions	Partially upheld	Issue consolidated action summary.
Communication	Partially upheld	Use one structured update route.

 

Required Actions

 

1.     Provide a consolidated written update on actions arising from the September meeting.

2.     Explain that the Chief Finance Officer was consulted but no available Council budget was identified because of constraints across all budgets and the ongoing deficit.

3.     Clarify that £5,000 to £6,000 is expenditure absorbed by the Council, not an approved cash payment.

4.     Explain HRA and other restrictions affecting private render costs.

5.     Ensure future communications identify whether deadlines and financial proposals are approved or subject to authority.

6.     Provide a single point of contact for the two options and associated financial information.

 

Conclusion

 

I recognise that this outcome will not resolve all financial concerns. The Council must act within its legal powers, protect the Housing Revenue Account and take account of significant pressures across all services.

 

The investigation found that potential additional assistance was explored, including direct discussion with the Chief Finance Officer, but no available budget was identified. The Council also engaged with government, appraised options, commissioned valuations, developed voluntary purchase and repair routes, absorbed significant costs and worked with owners individually.

 

There were shortcomings in communication, particularly the January 2026 deadline communication and the absence of a clear consolidated update. I apologise for those shortcomings.

 

Yours sincerely

Lorraine Sanda

Depute Chief Executive and Director of Wellbeing

 

We have investigated your complaint, the results of which are set out above.   The complaint was investigated in line with Stage 2 of the Council's Corporate Complaints Policy. https://www.clacks.gov.uk/council/commentsandcomplaints

 

The above response now concludes the Council’s response to your Stage 2 complaint. If you remain unhappy with the outcome you can contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, should you wish to escalate your complaint further.

 

 

 

 

Information about the SPSO

 

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) is the final stage for complaints about public services in Scotland.  This includes complaints about local councils and the NHS in Scotland.  If you remain dissatisfied when you have had a final response from Clackmannanshire Council, you can ask the SPSO to look at your complaint.  The SPSO cannot normally look at complaints:

 

Ø   where you have not gone all the way through the council’s complaints handling procedure

Ø   more than 12 months after you became aware of the matter you want to complain about,

OR

Ø   that have been or are being considered in court.

 

The SPSO’s contact details are:

 

 

SPSO Bridgeside House 99 McDonald Road Edinburgh EH7 4NS

FREEPOST SPSO   Freephone:      0800 377 7330 Online Contact: www.spso.org.uk/contact-us Website: www.spso.org.uk