Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not transfer him to another prison nearer to his family, so they could visit him.

It was clear that Mr C was frustrated that his family could not visit, as they lived some distance away from his prison. However, we found that the SPS made reasonable efforts to transfer him nearer to his family over a period of time. Unfortunately, this was stalled for a number of valid reasons, including operational difficulties faced by Mr C's preferred prison. The SPS eventually managed to transfer Mr C to the prison nearest to his family. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council had failed to take reasonable action in response to their concerns about flooding at properties that belonged to their son and daughter. They said that the council had failed to meet their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.

The council had assessed the risk of flooding in the relevant area and had issued two options to property owners to resolve the matter. They considered that one of these would cost more than the other and told residents that if that option was chosen, they would require the properties benefitting from this work to come to an agreement to share the additional cost beyond the cost of the cheaper option. The residents failed to reach an agreement and, consequently, no work was carried out.

The council have discretion in relation to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Under our legislation, we can check that a council has followed the correct process. However, if the decision was made properly, we cannot question or change it. We found that the council had delayed in dealing with some of Mr and Mrs C's correspondence. Although we said that these delays were unacceptable, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this and had taken steps to try to prevent problems of a similar nature occurring. The council had also tried to resolve the matter by presenting two options to residents and we found that this was reasonable. We considered that the council had acted reasonably in relation to their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council after they failed to pay him a decoration/disturbance allowance following works to upgrade the bathroom in his temporary accommodation. He believed that he was entitled to this as it was clearly stated in a letter sent to him by the council that this would be paid. This entitlement was also reiterated to him by a contractor who was carrying out a survey to his property prior to the commencement of works.

In their final response to Mr C, and in communications with us, the council made it clear that Mr C should never have been notified that an allowance was payable, as this is provided to cover the costs of redecoration after works and, as a temporary occupant, he is not responsible for the decoration of his accommodation. They apologised to him for this miscommunication and took steps to ensure that a similar mistake would not be made in future. We therefore found that the decision not to pay the allowance was reasonable and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

A gas inspection was carried out at Miss C's home via forced entry. Miss C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide her with appropriate notice about the gas inspection. However, the evidence available confirmed that three attempts were made to gain entry to Miss C's home and appropriate notification was given that a forced entry would occur. The council acted within their remit and followed the appropriate procedures.

Miss C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to her complaint. However, we found that the council responded appropriately to the main points of the complaint raised by Miss C. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to repair defects with her windows. Mrs C had new windows fitted in late 2012. Since early 2013 she had reported problems with the windows. Each time she did, the council arranged for a joiner to visit and fix the window if necessary. There was no evidence that following those visits Mrs C had reported the fixes had not worked. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he asked Glasgow Life to provide him with a copy of their full complaints procedure, they failed to do so. He also thought that this policy should be available to all who complain. In addition, he complained that a statement in an email sent to him by Glasgow Life was inaccurate as it indicated that they had apologised to him in previous correspondence. He claimed they had never apologised to him.

We found that Mr C's email in which he requested a copy of the complaints procedure was ambiguous and could be interpreted in a number of ways. Considering that Glasgow Life had explained how Mr C could progress his complaint, that the full complaints procedure was available on their website, and that he could have asked them for a copy directly, we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

We also reviewed earlier correspondence between Glasgow Life and Mr C, and noted the empathetic content of their responses. They had apologised that they were unable to provide the facilities and services which Mr C wanted at certain times. As a result of this, we did not uphold his second point of complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to properly consider a planning application to build a house next door to their property. They said that their objections had not been properly taken into account and that the council failed to implement the terms of the permission granted in a reasonable way. They said that their amenity and enjoyment of their home had been detrimentally affected. They alleged that their representations about this were not dealt with properly.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and we found that, in initially considering the planning application, the council had dealt with it both reasonably and appropriately; Mr and Mrs C's objections were taken into account and permission was granted subject to conditions. Thereafter, as works progressed, Mr and Mrs C brought the council's attention to the fact that not all the conditions were being complied with. The council decided to pursue a negotiated settlement with the developer (rather than to take enforcement action), which they were entitled to do. There was no evidence that Mr and Mrs C's representations were ignored although it was clear that they were not dealt with in the way that Mr and Mrs C would have preferred. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C was a planning applicant who had his application refused. Mr C complained about what he felt to be inexplicable and unjustifiable inconsistencies in the council's approach to planning policy. He was concerned that the council had taken a different approach to determining the planning application for the development, compared with their processing of other planning applications that he regarded to be very similar and within the same local plan area.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council demonstrated that they dealt properly with their assessment and determination of this particular planning application, in terms of procedure and in full accordance with their statutory duties and obligations.

In the absence of evidence of administrative failure, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of several concerns he brought to their attention in relation to health and safety at a caravan site. In particular, Mr C was concerned that he contacted the council about health and safety concerns about an unfenced bridge on the site but several months later the bridge was still unfenced, and the council did not tell him that they did not consider this to be a health and safety issue (as they are required to do under their policy, if they decide not to investigate a reported issue). Mr C also said that statements by the council that signs on the site had been updated and that raised manhole covers had been addressed were incorrect. Mr C said that, although some signs had now been updated, this was not done at the time the council said it was. In relation to the manhole covers, Mr C said there were a number of manhole covers which were raised above ground level, which he considered to be a tripping risk (and he provided some photographs of these).

The council said they had inspected the unfenced bridge and raised this with the site owners, but did not intend to take any further formal action (as there was no significant health and safety breach). The council also said that signs on the site had been updated, and provided photographs of these. In relation to the raised manholes, the council explained that this was a misunderstanding. Their previous statements that the manholes had been fixed referred to concerns that the manholes had inadequate covers, and that there was a risk of vermin or small children accessing the manhole. The council said they were now satisfied that this had been addressed, and provided photographs of the work. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the raised manholes constituting a tripping risk, the council said they did not share these concerns and did not consider this to be a health and safety risk.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had complied with their policy in responding to Mr C's concerns about the bridge, and had kept him updated about the overall work on the site, as well as offering to meet to discuss all of his outstanding concerns. We accepted that the misunderstanding about the manholes appeared to be a communication error, and we found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in determining that the manholes no longer constituted a health and safety risk. In relation to the signage, we noted that both parties agreed signage had now been updated, and so we did not consider that there was value in pursuing this matter further.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he attended the practice in February 2015 for dental treatment he was told that he would have to agree to a new treatment plan as the previous one had lapsed. This meant that Mr C would have to pay additional costs for his dental treatment. However, Mr C said that his costs under the previous treatment plan had been capped and that he had reached the limit and, as such, the outstanding dental treatment should be provided at no extra cost to himself. He maintained that at no time was he told that there was a time limit to complete a course of treatment.

The practice maintained that the previous treatment plan began in August 2013 and that they had to repeatedly send reminders to Mr C to attend for further appointments under the treatment plan. Mr C last received treatment under the plan in October 2014 and the practice wrote to the health board in December 2014 and asked that the treatment plan should be deemed to be closed. The practice maintained that their staff verbally advised Mr C to attend regular appointments in order to complete the treatment plan.

We sought independent dental advice from two advisers. They confirmed that there was no obligation on dental practices to provide written information to patients with advice that should they fail to attend regular dental appointments under an agreed plan then the plan would be closed.

We did not uphold the complaint as we felt on balance that the practice staff had verbally encouraged Mr C to make regular appointments and that there was also an obligation on him to contact the practice if he had difficulty in being available for appointments. It was also noted that the practice now provide patients with written advice about the importance of attending regular appointments to complete an agreed treatment plan.