Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C said his complaints about swearing and the use of insulting language by prison staff had not been properly investigated.

We found that the steps taken to investigate and respond to the complaints Mr C made were reasonable in the circumstances.

There was a lack of evidence to corroborate Mr C's complaint about a particular incident because the CCTV footage did not record sound.

In respect of swearing, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) found there was conflicting evidence, with staff denying any use of profanity. SPS found there was evidence of antipathy between Mr C and some staff members in a particular work group which Mr C did not want to be part of. SPS agreed that Mr C could move to another work group, which we found was a reasonable solution in the circumstances. SPS issued a generic reminder to staff about expectations in terms of their behaviour. When Mr C told SPS he had been assaulted the matter was, appropriately, referred to Police Scotland for further investigation.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about a statutory notice on his property. He complained that the council had failed to act on his assertion that his property had been damaged by the contractors carrying out the statutory notice work and that a breakdown of costs had not been provided to him either during the works or after completion. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to notify him properly of the statutory notice, and failed to manage the projects in line with their obligations.

During our investigations we examined the information provided by the council and Mr C. We found that Mr C had not raised the issue of his property being damaged until several years after the works had been completed and therefore the council had no obligation to act. We found that the council had provided Mr C with a breakdown of estimated costs during the works being carried out, and a breakdown of final costs when they were completed. We also found that Mr C had been notified of the statutory notices in line with council policy, and that the projects were managed in line with all council obligations. Therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and had not dealt reasonably with a request for rent remission (that she should not pay full rent during some of the time the repairs were taking place).

While we noted that a number of repairs were required and that there were delays, we did not find evidence that this was as a result of problems which the council could have predicted.

Regarding the request for a rent remission, we noted that Miss C had taken possession of the property following a mutual exchange, whereby she had agreed to take the property in the condition it was in. The council's view was that the property was habitable throughout the repairs, and as such full rent payment was due and no remission would be granted. We did not find this to be unreasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to act on concerns she raised about possible structural damage to her home caused by works carried out on the adjoining property. She was of the view that the building control team failed in their duty to protect her and her family from dangerous works, failed to respond appropriately to her phone calls and failed to communicate with her appropriately. She was also unhappy with their response to her subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had inspected the work and noted that the works which caused damage were to a party wall which was not included in the building warrant. The council obtained agreement from the neighbour to reinstate the wall and, having inspected the wall, they were satisfied that it was safe. The damage caused to Miss C's property by the works carried out by her neighbour were, essentially, private legal matters between her and her neighbour. Having reviewed the council's actions, we were satisfied that they responded to Miss C's concerns appropriately. We were also satisfied that they had provided a reasonable response to her subsequent complaint. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a meeting he had with them to discuss proposed design changes to a public space. He told us that he felt the staff present had communicated in a manner which was hostile and patronising and that he had left with the impression that the purpose of the meeting was to bully and intimidate him rather than discuss the merits of the proposal in question.

Mr C had originally advised that he held a recording of the meeting in question, taken with the permission of everyone present. However, the recording had become corrupted and Mr C was unable to provide this.

On investigation, we found that the council had not taken minutes or made any other written record of the meeting. We did not consider this unreasonable in the circumstances but this did mean we were unable to reach a definitive conclusion, basing our decision on the limited records that were available.

On balance, we concluded that while it was clear that Mr C had left the meeting extremely dissatisfied with the manner council officers communicated with him, the evidence available did not support this complaint. What written communication was available was considered and professional in tone and appeared to suggest that the council were willing to discuss the issues in question openly and thoroughly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's actions in relation to planning issues for a development next to his home. He said that they had unreasonably considered the addition of an extra upper storey window in one of the houses in the development to be a non-material variation (a change which does not require planning permission). We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had been entitled to consider that the additional window was a non-material variation and did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had found that a condition in the planning permission relating to the boundary at the site had been met, despite the fact that the fence built by the developer was constructed two metres short of the boundary and left several trees on Mr C's side of the fence. We found that it had been reasonable for the council to decide that the developer had complied with the terms of the planning permission in relation to the boundary. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to ensure that adequate on-site parking provision for workers was provided during the construction period. We found that the council's actions in relation to this matter, including their decision to take advice from their roads service, had been reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that works did not take place at the development site outwith the construction periods referred to in one of the conditions of the planning permission. We found evidence that the council had adequately monitored the situation, including issuing reminders prior to bank holidays. We considered that the council had taken reasonable action to ensure that works did not take place outwith the construction period and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) following the council's decision to deem Mr A intentionally homeless. We found the council had followed and applied the relevant legislation appropriately. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's handling of asset transfers to two local charities, as she did not believe that the council had completed appropriate Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)s as required under the Equality Act 2010. She believed that they had only completed one EIA, which failed to consider all of the protected groups defined in the Act.

On investigation, we found that the council had completed EIAs for both asset transfers. On the first of these assessments, one area of the form used had only been partially completed, giving the initial impression that only some protected groups had been assessed. However, after reviewing their records in full, we were satisfied, on balance, that the council had considered all of the areas required. As such, we shared this minor error with the council but did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the housing association failed to undertake a reasonable pre-inspection check on a damaged asbestos cement panel in his home. He was unhappy with the results of an asbestos survey and asked the council to remove the panel completely, which they did.

We were able to establish that the damage to the panel was only discovered following the work carried out by an energy supplier and no work was carried out on the panel by the association after Mr C took up the tenancy. As such, we considered there to be no evidence that the association failed to undertake a reasonable pre-inspection check on the asbestos cement panel in Mr C's property. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

When Ms C moved to a new property, she suffered from anti-social behaviour and felt that this was related to the previous tenant. During our investigation we noted that the housing association was not aware of any reason why Ms C might experience anti-social behaviour. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.