Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C's neighbour is a council tenant living in temporary accommodation. Mrs C said that the tenant was noisy on a number of occasions, and she was unhappy with the council's response to the problem. She complained that the council were not dealing with this effectively, and that a housing officer gave neighbours incorrect information about who to contact if there were further problems.

We reviewed the relevant records and correspondence, as well as the council's comments on the complaint and their procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. We concluded that the council's actions were reasonable and were taken in line with their procedure. We also found no evidence that the housing officer had given incorrect information about who to contact, so we could not uphold Mrs C's complaint and we made no recommendations. We did, however, suggest to the council that they could in future consider providing written information, such as a leaflet, for neighbours with details of who to contact about any further antisocial behaviour.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's assessment of a planning application for the construction of a dormer window and roof-light in a neighbouring house in a conservation area. He said that they had not properly assessed the application against the relevant planning policies, local development plan and the area conservation appraisal.

The council responded to the complaint by acknowledging that the case officer's report did not fully detail the consideration of the application, and made it difficult to understand the council's decision-making. However, they had reviewed the way the application was considered and concluded that the decision was appropriate.

We took independent advice on this from one of our planning advisers, considered the relevant case files and reviewed the planning application and relevant planning policies. From our review we were satisfied that the application had been properly considered, taking into account the conservation status of the area and the relevant local conservation appraisal document, local development plan and planning policy. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the application was considered, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mrs A) that the council were not doing enough to prevent water seeping into her garden and pooling on her path where it met the public pavement. He explained that this caused problems in winter when the water froze, and increased Mrs A's risk of falling. He said that the water was coming from council land, so they should put in additional drains to minimise the seepage.

In responding to the complaint, the council inspected the drains from the property and found no problems. They also inspected the council-owned area of grass beside Mrs A's home and installed a soakaway (a gravel-filled channel or pit that helps manage surface water), although they did not think that very much water was coming into her property from there. The council said they thought that the problem she was experiencing was due to groundwater (water found underground in the cracks and spaces in soil, sand and rock), and pointed out that property owners are responsible for protecting their own property from flooding and for draining their land. They provided advice on what Mrs A could do to improve drainage, and also resurfaced the pavement to reduce the risk of pooling at the entrance to the path. They said, however, that the remaining pooling related to paving slabs on the path itself, and was Mrs A's responsibility.

We checked the council's statutory responsibilities under roads and flooding legislation. Our investigation found that this makes it clear that the home owner is responsible for water collecting in their own property. Having considered the council's responsibilities, and the actions they had already taken to try and improve the situation for Mrs A, we found no evidence of administrative failure in how they handled this.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not taken appropriate action to address a number of concerns he had about a neighbouring development. He said that the boundary fence was unsafe because a large number of nails protruded from it into his property and that there were excavations beside the fence that the developer had not completely filled in. He also complained that the developer failed to properly connect drains to the drainage system of the neighbouring private road.

The council had explained to Mr C that their planning department were satisfied that the fence complied with the approved plans and that the finish of the fence was a private legal matter. They also said that the drainage problem was a matter between residents and the developer, as the road was private.

We fully considered the information from the council and Mr C, and agreed that the issues Mr C raised were essentially private legal matters. We were satisfied that the council's planning and building control team had taken appropriate steps to try and address his concerns, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to maintain and repair a section of road near his home in line with their obligations. He also said that when he reported pot holes to the council, they failed to carry out repairs within the required timescales.

The council said that they met their responsibilities in terms of roads inspection and maintenance and that when Mr C reported problems to them they took action to repair them within an appropriate timescale.

We obtained the council's records which showed that they had inspected the road, as required by their code of practice, and where defects were identified, they had carried out repairs. They also provided records showing that they had responded to Mr C's reports of pot holes and had carried out necessary repairs the following day. As the council had met their responsibilities in terms of the inspection and repairs, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C said that a social work services complaints review panel had made several recommendations setting out action to be taken by social work services concerning her son and grandchild. She complained that the council failed to implement three of the recommendations.

The evidence supplied by the council showed that they had in fact implemented the disputed recommendations, but we had concerns that they were unable to provide documentary evidence to support all of their actions. When we raised these concerns, the council told us that they had recently formalised how they keep track of actions to be taken following recommendations made at a panel, and from 1 April 2014 introduced plans for improved recording of actions and learning. As they had already put in place an appropriate process, we did not make any formal recommendation on this. We were also concerned that the council did not currently update complainants about actions taken following panel recommendations, unless they specifically asked for this. During our contact with them about the case, the council said they may consider in future notifying complainants, either verbally or in writing, when panel recommendations have been carried out. We told them that we would welcome this change.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council acted unreasonably in granting temporary planning permission for a mast to be erected on the Isle of Orsay (an uninhabited island). The mast was intended to collect meteorological information essential for the development of an offshore wind farm near Islay. The wind farm had been designated a project of national importance by the Scottish Government, and the planning application for it was to be considered by the government, rather than the council.

Mrs C said that the council had not taken account of Orsay's special protected area (SPA) status under European law, and they had not given sufficient weight to objectors' requests for an environmental impact assessment. Mrs C also felt the council's decision was inconsistent with a previous planning decision on a proposal to site the mast nearby. She said that the council's actions contravened the Aarhus Convention (a European convention establishing a number of rights of the public with regard to the environment) in relation to public participation and environmental information.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who said that the mast could not be considered to have the same impact as a wind turbine because of the difference in size, and that the temporary nature of the permission was an important consideration. Orsay's SPA designation had been addressed in Scottish National Heritage (SNH)'s response to the council's planning consultation and the council acted reasonably in relying on this in their decision. He also said that the council were entitled to decide how much weight to give to information from objectors. They had to bear in mind that a decision giving too much weight to objections from members of the public, as opposed to advice received from SNH as a specialist body, would have been open to challenge. The adviser said the application for the alternative site was withdrawn before the council could consider it, so no precedent was set, and in their decision the council could give no weight to the applicant's decision to withdraw. The adviser went on to say that he did not consider that the principles of the Aarhus Convention had been breached and that the council's approach to the hearing had reflected general good practice.

Overall, our investigation found that the council acted reasonably and in accordance with general good practice in determining the planning application. The decision they reached was one that they were entitled to make and they acted within their discretionary powers when considering submissions from objectors to the application.

Summary

Mr and Mrs A, who are private landlords, leased properties to tenants introduced to them by the council's social work department. They said that at the end of these leases, their properties were in a state of disrepair. Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A that the council had made a verbal agreement that, when recommending tenants, the council would reinstate the properties to their pre-letting condition when the tenancies ended. He also complained that the council had withheld information about the tenants and during the tenancies, and had failed to supervise the tenants.

While we recognised that Mr C said that a verbal commitment had been given in relation to the tenants, our investigation found no evidence that any commitment had been given to supervise or to agree to reinstate the properties at the end of the tenancies. In addition we found no evidence that the council had withheld information that Mr and Mrs A were entitled to see.

Summary

Mr C complained that he did not have continuity of mental health care, as he had been seen by eleven different consultant psychiatrists. Mr C said this was frustrating for him, and caused him concern about whether he was receiving consistent care and treatment.

We looked at Mr C's medical records, and took independent advice from our mental health adviser. We also asked the board what they were doing to deal with staffing issues in community mental health. The board explained the reasons for the lack of consistency in staffing, and provided reassurance about the steps being taken to improve the situation. They also remedied Mr C's specific situation by placing him on the caseload of a senior member of staff.

Our adviser said that although there was a lack of consistency in the consultants who saw Mr C, there was no evidence in the medical records that his care and treatment were adversely affected in a significant way, or that there was a lack of continuity in his treatment. The standard of medical record-keeping and communication with his GP was reasonable, and ensured that important clinical information was appropriately passed on. Our adviser also said there had been greater consistency in terms of community psychiatric nursing provided, which helped offset any difficulties created by the problems with medical staffing.

Summary

Mr C complained that a dentist had failed to fit a crown properly. He said that the crown was too big and that he could not close his teeth together. He also said that it eventually fractured because it had been too big.

We took independent advice on this complaint from our dental adviser. The crown had initially been too big, and Mr C had gone back to the dental practice the day after it was fitted to have it adjusted. The adviser said that minor adjustments are often required to a crown to fit the biting surface correctly, and that this was not unreasonable. The dental notes indicated that Mr C had accepted the adjustment that was made. There was no evidence in the dental records that he later complained about the size of the crown before it broke over two years later. We found no evidence that the care and treatment the dentist provided to Mr C was unreasonable.