Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's role in relation to a housing development in which he had bought a house from a developer who was no longer trading, and with no completion certificate. Mr C complained that the council had not ensured that the access road met the approved plans or building regulations. He also questioned whether a fire engine would be able to access his house, and was unhappy that the council would not survey the road to check its width.

We reviewed the evidence and could see that the relevant building regulations had required a minimum road width of 3.7 metres. In addition, the council had acknowledged to Mr C that the approved drawings specified a width of 4.0 metres. However, the council said the road's adequacy would have been considered when they granted completion certificates to the development's other properties. They said their surveyors would not have needed to measure its width and this was a matter of professional judgment.

The council provided us with copies of Scottish Government guidance relating to the building standards system. We considered the guidance and it indicated that the council do not stand behind a developer's work, nor is it their role to ensure it is done to an owner's satisfaction. The evidence showed that the responsibility for compliance was not the council's and did not point to maladministration by them. Their role was not as extensive as Mr C might have wished it to have been and we did not uphold his complaint.

In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council told him that the building regulations in place at the time did not require them to consult with the fire authority. Although Mr C felt best practice would have been for the council to have done so anyway, they provided evidence to show they had recently arranged for the fire service to attend the development. The fire service had confirmed they were comfortable with access in the event of an emergency and that they had no concerns. In light of the assurance the council had obtained - and the fact the evidence indicated that the duty to comply with the building regulations was not theirs - we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, the council confirmed to Mr C that they had checked the size of the refuse vehicles that accessed his property, and their correspondence clearly showed that the fire service had accessed the development and had no concerns. We found no evidence of any administrative failing by the council in terms of checking the width of the road.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that a properly accessible manhole cover was installed (in line with the approved drawings) at the development where he had bought a house. He also felt they had failed to confirm that the surface water drainage satisfied the approved plans and that his house's roof construction met the correct standards. Mr C had bought his house without a completion certificate being in place and he was unhappy at the steps the council had taken with the development.

In considering Mr C's complaints, we took account of the extent of the council's role and obligations. The evidence they provided – including Scottish Government guidance on the building standards system - indicated that it was not their role to effectively supervise the development or to ensure compliance with plans or drawings. In addition, the fact that the manhole cover was missing years after the development was completed did not, by extension, mean it was never in place. Although we could not confirm from the paperwork whether the manhole cover was ever in place, the evidence showed that the council's role was clearly less than Mr C had expected.

In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council said they were not required to test the development's surface water system. They also said that this would not be part of the final inspection following an application for a completion certificate (noting that there had been no such application for Mr C's property). Mr C had indicated that the drainage system had actually been working successfully and the evidence again pointed to the council's limited role. Although his concerns were clear, there was no evidence that the council had done anything wrong.

Finally, the council told Mr C that enclosing the eaves of his roof was neither required under building regulations nor part of a final inspection. Rather, a roof would generally be visually inspected from ground level, with an intrusive inspection possibly following if the council felt it necessary. In light of the council's limited role with the development, we considered it clear they were not responsible for the quality of the builder's workmanship.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about their refusal to install a gas fire in her home when the existing one broke down and was replaced with an electric fire. Mrs C said that she offered to pay for a new gas fire but the council refused and advised her to use her gas central heating system. She was concerned that the electric fire would affect her asthma but was told that it was council policy to only install electric fires. Mrs C was unhappy that the gas central heating took longer to heat up, was unreliable, and more expensive to run when she needed to get up during the night because of suffering from other disabilities. She felt that the council may be in breach of their own disability policy by not allowing her to have a gas fire.

We found that the council had checked the gas central heating was properly working and they had arranged for advice to be given on how to heat her home efficiently but this was refused by her. We did not find evidence to show that the council had failed to follow their written procedures in terms of their gas safety policy or that their policy failed to meet Mrs C’s health and disability needs when refusing her a gas fire. They also made a prompt referral to social services to assess Mrs C’s health needs, although this was not carried out. The council said that this was because Mrs C refused the assessment but Mrs C said she was told it was unlikely social services could do anything about getting her a gas fire. We found no evidence that Mrs C was given this advice.

We were satisfied that the council had not dismissed her health concerns and noted that they remained willing to explore Mrs C's health needs and the options available. We found, therefore, that the council's actions were reasonable.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's communication with them in relation to their concerns about the release of personal information was unreasonable. They said that communication was vague, and failed to address their concerns and the specific points they had raised.

We found that there were errors in relation to information displayed on a section of the council's website. However, our investigation found that the council's communications with the couple about the matter had been clear and fully addressed their specific concerns. They had also previously apologised to Mr and Mrs C.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council rejected a new complaint following a complaints review panel. We found that the council had considered her complaint and had decided, as they were entitled to, that Mrs C was raising the same or similar points as had already been dealt with. In light of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had not followed appropriate and mandatory procedures when they approved a planning application, which removed a condition that local slate had to be used on a new visitor centre. When Ms C complained to the council her complaint was not upheld, but she said there had been bias towards the developer and appropriate checking of information was not carried out.

Our investigation considered all correspondence between Ms C and the council, the detailed planning reports and planning committee meetings, as well as planning legislation and local plans. We found that the council had followed appropriate procedures when they amended the condition and had reasonably considered the slate options for the visitor centre. Although strong differences of opinion were expressed, the final decision of the planning committee to use a different slate was one they were entitled to take.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live on a road that was closed following a landslide. They complained that this was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below their street, and felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. They also complained about the length of time taken by the council to reach a decision as to what to do with their road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C lives on a road that was closed following a landslide. He complained that the landslide was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below his street. Mr C felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. He also complained about the length of time the council took to decide what to do with the road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C complained to the practice that he was concerned that his daughter (Miss A) had been inappropriately prescribed medication for bladder problems. He felt that this was not clinically indicated and was for convenience only, and that Miss A was at risk of side effects from the medication. The practice believed that the medication was appropriate for the symptoms Miss A presented with.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, an experienced GP. Our adviser was satisfied from the medical records that, given Miss A's reported symptoms of urinary frequency and medical history, the medication was appropriate. We found that the practice's actions in prescribing the medication was appropriate and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the board that a decision had been taken inappropriately to reduce the number of gluten-free foods available on prescription for his mother (Mrs A) who suffers from a coeliac condition. Previously Mrs A was prescribed 18 units and this had been reduced to 14 units. The board maintained that Mrs A had been appropriately assessed in accordance with national guidelines and in view of her medical condition. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, and found that the dietitian had carried out a thorough assessment and that the prescribing of 14 units was appropriate.