Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that Business Stream were using the incorrect Rateable Value (RV) as a basis for the water charges applied to Mr A's property. Mr C said that they should have been using the RV assigned on 31 March 2000, but instead Business Stream were using an amended entry from 1 April 2013.

We found that Business Stream must use the RV from 31 March 2000 unless there has been an amended entry on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). When there is an amended entry, as there was in this case relating to Mr A's property, Business Stream must use it as the basis for calculating their charges, which they did. For this reason, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to update his driving licence in time prior to his release. The prison said Mr C's release had not been confirmed and because of that, they did not consider it appropriate to update his licence. They said they would reconsider Mr C's request if his release was confirmed.

We felt the prison's response to Mr C's request was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison would not allow him to have certain hi fi equipment or felt tip pens. Prisons have lists of the sort of items that are, and are not, allowed. Our investigation, which included examination of the relevant list, showed that Mr C's hi fi equipment was above the allowed wattage and that felt tip pens were not allowed because of the potential they offered for concealing inappropriate items such as drugs. We concluded that the prison had acted appropriately in refusing the items.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Office of the Public Guardian (Scotland) (the OPG) dealt with his complaint inadequately. Mr C said there was a delay in the OPG dealing with his enquiry, that they got a relative's name wrong throughout the complaint, and that they did not answer specific questions he asked.

We looked at the OPG's file on Mr C's complaint, and asked for their comments. The OPG explained, as they had done to Mr C, that their involvement in a guardianship case ends with the death of the adult and the discharge of the guardian. In Mr C's case, both of these events happened some time before he contacted them. Despite this, in an effort to be helpful, the OPG responded to Mr C's enquiry, doing so after a summary review of the relevant case file. In their response, they explained to Mr C that they were only carrying out a summary review, although Mr C was not satisfied with this. They also apologised for getting the relative's name wrong, and for the delay in responding to Mr C.

We found that the OPG had dealt with Mr C's complaint reasonably, as although Mr C was unhappy with the summary response, this was more than they were required to provide given the time that had passed since their involvement in guardianship matters had come to an end. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Historic Scotland were invited to provide a view on a planning application, as a statutory consultee. Mr C complained that they failed to evidence the view they provided on this, and also said that in responding to his complaint, they had altered the wording of his complaints.

We did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints. We found that Historic Scotland were not required to record their decision-making process any more thoroughly than they had done, and that, although Mr C disagreed with their view, it was reasonable and there was a clear process of how it was reached. We also found that while it would have been preferable for Historic Scotland to have informed Mr C of their proposed re-wording of his complaints, his concerns had been answered in full.

Summary

Mr C was a witness in a court case, but the case did not proceed on the day he attended court. Mr C said the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told him that one of the reasons for the case not taking place was because of a procurator fiscal's understanding that witnesses were not present. Mr C complained about this to COPFS but was not satisfied with their response, so he complained to us that COPFS failed to adequately investigate his complaint and respond to it.

We found that, as COPFS had told Mr C, the procurator fiscal who dealt with the court case was not at work when COPFS responded to Mr C's complaint. COPFS told us that they could not give Mr C details about the procurator fiscal's absence, as it was confidential personal information. The evidence showed that, in the absence of the procurator fiscal, COPFS had looked at the notes from the relevant day in court, and had contacted court staff. We were satisfied that, in the circumstances, COPFS had adequately investigated Mr C's complaint and responded to him. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C sold their property but established that a part of an extension to the property was built on land not under their ownership. They approached the council with a request to purchase the land as they thought that the land may be common good land. Their solicitors advised the council that this matter was urgent as the sale of the property had already gone through. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that there was then a delay of a few months before the council determined that the land was not in common good ownership.

In responding to the complaint, the council advised that they were told by Mr and Mrs C's solicitor that this was common good land and, in order to speed up the sale, they immediately sought approval, through the appropriate procedure, to obtain councillors' agreement to the sale. Once this was obtained, and a price negotiated, and agreed, with Mr and Mrs C's solicitor, the council then asked their solicitor to conclude the sale. At this stage, the council's solicitor established that the land was not common good and Mr and Mrs C's solicitor was provided with information of the current owners. Although the council accepted that, in hindsight, they could have identified the ownership earlier, they said that they were asked to arrange the sale of land which was held in the common good and they did so. They were also of the view that it was for Mr and Mrs C to establish title of their property before proceeding with a sale.

We considered the evidence. This clearly showed that Mr and Mrs C's solicitor was of the view that this was common good land and that they did not approach the council for clarification of title, they asked to buy the land. As responsibility for clarifying title rests with Mr and Mrs C's solicitor, and as we found no evidence of administrative failing in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's handling of statutory repairs notices that had been served on their property. They complained that the council had failed to follow their own internal processes when awarding the contract for the statutory repairs, and to follow their procedures for checking that the work carried out was correctly invoiced. Mr and Mrs C said that the final account included items that had not been completed, unnecessary work, duplicate items and items not related to any statutory notice. Finally, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response to their complaint about the issue of an emergency notice.

During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had responded to Mr and Mrs C's concerns and had explained that they were satisfied that the tendering process was in line with approved procurement procedures. We also found that they had fully considered Mr and Mrs C's concerns about the final account. Having thoroughly investigated the works carried out, they were satisfied that the project was competitively tendered, the costs were reasonable and the statutory notices were issued appropriately.

Finally, we found that, based on the available evidence, the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations about the issue of a statutory notice. In particular, they had explained that the decision to issue this was based on the professional judgement of the surveyor at the time of issue in 2008.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the processing of a planning application. Mr C complained that the council had not considered all the relevant material considerations and had not conducted the Regulatory Planning Hearing in line with procedure.

We sought independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered all the relevant material considerations and listed these in the officer's report and discussed them at the planning hearing. Our adviser was also satisfied the planning hearing had been conducted in line with procedure. In light of the advice received, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's regulatory panel had granted planning consent for a radio mast in the garden of a neighbour despite having been given photographic evidence of the site which was out-of-date. Since the original photographs of the site were taken by planning officers a number of trees had been felled which Mr C said altered the screening of the site. Mr C was of the view that the council should have taken new photographs after the felling had taken place and should also have issued a new and updated report of handling to objectors to the development.

In responding to the complaint the council said that the regulatory panel was fully aware of the felling that had taken place as the son of the applicant had informed them of the changes. In addition, an objector had written to highlight the felling and Mr C himself had spoken at the panel hearing and highlighted this issue. The regulatory panel chose not to visit the site or require updated photographic evidence as they did not consider it necessary to determine the application.

We considered Mr C's complaint and found that the regulatory panel had been made fully aware of the felling which had taken place and had the opportunity to request further information. As they did not consider this was required, however, they determined the application. We also found that the council had no responsibility to issue a new and updated report of handling following the tree felling and that, even if they had, they would not be obliged to issue copies of this document to objectors. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way these matters were dealt with by the council, we did not uphold the complaint.