Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Miss C said that a teacher dragged her child out of class by the neck, and she complained about this to the council. Miss C was unhappy with the council's response and she complained to us. We could not look at the alleged incident itself, as the SPSO Act 2002 says that we cannot investigate conduct or discipline in schools. We looked at the council's handling of Miss C's complaint.

We found that children, both in groups and as individuals, and school staff were asked about the alleged incident. In particular, the children were given an opportunity to speak to staff in confidence, or to leave an anonymous note. We were satisfied with the council's handling of the complaint and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not acted on two recommendations which were made by the complaints review committee, who hear complaints at the third and final stage of the council's complaint handling procedure for social work complaints. We found that the council had acted reasonably. Specifically there was evidence that the council had acted on the recommendation that they examine other facilities for the delivery of Mr C's son's support programme. Mr C said the council did not comply with a recommendation that future meetings should be recorded and agreed. The council explained that the purpose of the visit in question was to inspect and view the risks to Mr C's disabled son in his home environment. It was not a meeting as traditionally defined or at which decisions were made. We found the council's explanation to be rational and reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action when his neighbour built an extension without applying for planning permission. Under planning legislation, if an extension is to be no more than four metres in height, planning permission is not normally required. However, Mr C noticed that the extension his neighbour was building was more than four metres high and asked the council to take action on this. The council measured the extension as being 4.1 metres high, but decided not to ask for a planning application to be submitted.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council were entitled to reach the decision that, although the extension exceeded the permitted development threshold by 0.1 metres and was a breach of planning control, they would not pursue the matter further by requiring the submission of a revised planning application. We took the view that the council had acted reasonably in the circumstances, and did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate responses to his complaints. We found, however, that they had provided reasonable responses to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained that when assessing a planning application, the park authority failed to give priority to the primary aim of the park which is to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Mr C suggested that this application caused conflict amongst the aims of the park and, as a result, section 9 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2011 should be invoked. This requires that the primary aim of the park be given priority where conflict of the other aims exist.

The park authority explained that their planning policies take account of the park's aims. They explained that this development was assessed on its merits, and against the parks policies and local plan, and it was determined that the development could be granted consent and proceed without an unreasonable impact on the area.

We considered the park authority's review of this application and noted that they had demonstrated the relevant policies and procedures against which this development must be assessed. They explained their decision-making process and the reasons for recommending approval to the planning committee. They also provided details of the mitigation required through planning conditions. We found no evidence to suggest that this application was not appropriately considered against relevant planning policies and we found the park authority's view that Section 9 of the Act need not be invoked to be reasonable. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

An advocacy agency complained on behalf of a client (Mr C) that the council had failed to take reasonable account of his circumstances when considering his application for a Community Care Grant under the Scottish Welfare Fund. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint because our investigation found no evidence that in their handling of Mr C's application, the council had not taken reasonable account of his circumstances or considered the matter properly under both the Scottish Government guidance and their own procedures.

Summary

Ms C said that she had experienced unacceptable noise levels from a neighbouring flat. She called the council to report the disturbance and when officers visited they decided, as the tenants had just moved in, that the noise level was not unacceptably high. Ms C called the council's noise monitoring team the next day to complain that a reading had not been taken but she was unhappy about the way the officer spoke to her. She called the following night when there again was noise but the council did not come out to her property. The council's investigation considered her complaints about the member of staff and the anti-social noise and did not uphold her complaints. We considered the council's log of contact with Ms C, their procedures for dealing with noise and complaints handling and found that the officers had no evidence of anti-social noise to act upon and that the council had responded reasonably to her concerns in line with their procedures.

Summary

Mrs C complained that for the four years her son (Mr A) had been a pupil at a school within the council area, no assessment was made of what extra support he required, and teachers did not provide supportive evidence. This was despite her requests that her son was assessed to determine what extra support needs he had. She said that after Mr A left the school, he began to attend a local further education college where he was given a full psychological assessment. The associated report confirmed that Mr A had signs of dyslexia. Mrs C believed that as a consequence of the school's actions, Mr A did not perform as well as he could have in his exams. She said that his self confidence had been detrimentally affected.

Our investigation found that throughout Mr A's school career, whenever Mrs C had asked for his support to be considered, her request was reviewed in terms of the council's policy and, where necessary, appropriate support was provided. Mr A was given the means by which he could perform to his best ability and he performed as had been predicted (and on occasion better) in an independent assessment all pupils had been given. Furthermore, although Mrs C requested special adjustments for Mr A during his exams, his teachers' views had been obtained and assessed and the Scottish Qualifications Authority consulted and it was determined, on this basis, that he did not require extra support. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the closure of his local library and re-development of the building. He said that the council had not done what they said they would do; that they had provided inaccurate information on an external funding application; and that they did not deal reasonably with his subsequent complaints.

Our investigation found that the council had undertaken community consultation and consideration of the various options for the re-development as they had said they would. Mr C did not agree with the option chosen, but this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. On the funding application, we found that some of the information Mr C described as inaccurate was subjective, but that this did not necessarily make it inaccurate. Other comments were contained within internal documentation which, although relevant to the application, did not actually form part of the submitted application.

We also found that, although there was an initial delay in passing the complaint to the relevant department, overall the council complied with their complaints procedure and provided Mr C with comprehensive information in response to his concerns. Mr C did not agree with the council's viewpoint on certain issues, but this was not the same as failing to deal with these issues.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for four wind turbines near his home. He told us the council failed to respond to his letters before the case went to planning committee. We found that the council had replied reasonably and within a suitable timescale to Mr C's letters which postdated the committee meetings. We told Mr C that the council's obligation was to consider any material objection made to the application and that they were not obliged to respond to ongoing correspondence other than, as in this case, via the complaints handling procedure.

We found that the council had followed the usual and agreed decision-making process. The case was heard by a planning committee which recommended planning approval be delegated to a senior planning officer. We found no evidence, as Mr C believed, that the council had extended its usual 28 day representations period to 90 days. We found evidence that Mr C's objections were properly taken account of within the decision-making process.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the association had unreasonably charged her for repairs to her property and the removal of rubbish from the property, when she vacated it at the end of her tenancy. Mrs C said she had made all the necessary repairs and arranged for an uplift from the council for the rubbish left. Mrs C also questioned why it had taken the association three months to issue her with the bill for these works.

Our investigation found the association had been clear with Mrs C regarding the condition to leave the property in. They had also told her that if the property was not in a satisfactory condition then she was liable to have the costs of returning the property to such a condition recharged to her. While the council had uplifted some of the rubbish, Mrs C was told by the association that there was further rubbish outstanding. Furthermore, while the bill for the works was not sent for ten weeks from the date Mrs C vacated the property, she had been told before the bill was sent that the property was not in a satisfactory state and that charges were likely. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.