Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on report for refusing to work. He was found guilty of this charge at a disciplinary hearing but complained that the adjudicator would not listen to him and denied him the right to present evidence in his defence. He also said the adjudicator spoke to him inappropriately. The governor discussed this with the adjudicator and noted that Mr C had tried to provide information that was not felt relevant to the case. The adjudicator could not recall using the specific language alleged by Mr C.

In our investigation, we reviewed the disciplinary hearing paperwork and noted that Mr C had presented some information towards his defence. We also obtained further comment from the adjudicator. The adjudicator disputed the validity of the evidence presented by Mr C, which he considered to be merely Mr C's opinion, with no evidence to back this up. He said that Mr C did not request an adjournment in order to obtain supporting evidence and did not request the attendance of any witnesses. He noted that Mr C had not disputed the fact he refused to work and, on this basis, he was found guilty.

We found that Mr C was given the opportunity to present some evidence in his defence. Although he would clearly have liked a fuller opportunity to defend his position, we found no evidence to suggest that the prison acted unreasonably or failed to follow due process. In addition, we found no evidence to suggest that the adjudicator used inappropriate language and we were unable to reconcile the conflicting accounts of events.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had inappropriately implemented the prisoner wage earning policy. The SPS had introduced a new prisoner wage policy in August 2011. The policy recognised that the process of moving to this new wage earning system might present some particular challenges at certain locations and said that it would be a matter for individual prison governors to determine how best to achieve the desired outcome. It said that it was expected that all public sector prisons would have moved to the new policy by the end of December 2011, unless there were specific and compelling reasons why this might not be possible. The new policy was not rolled out in Mr C's prison until May 2012, as the SPS considered that full implementation of the policy there was a high security risk. Mr C considered that his earnings had been lower as a result of the delay in implementing the policy.

We found that governors had been allowed some discretion in how they implemented the new prisoner wage earning policy. We found that the governor of Mr C's prison had been entitled to adopt a phased approach in order to maintain security in the prison. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we did not identify any maladministration in relation to the governor's decision on the matter.

Summary

Mr C damaged the wheel and tyre of his car when he ran over a pothole in a minor road near his home. He made four complaints. The first concerned the processing of the claim he submitted to the council, which their loss adjusters had initially refused after it was passed to them to determine. The other three complaints related to the council’s responses or lack of acknowledgement and response to further reports of road defects and drainage problems at other locations near Mr C’s home.

Our investigation did not uphold any of Mr C’s four complaints. On the first, although the loss adjusters at first refused Mr C’s claim, the council had reconsidered the information and told them that it would be appropriate to make an offer of settlement. Mr C had refused the first offer but accepted a revised offer and was aware of his ability to raise a small claims action in the sheriff court. On the second complaint, the council had no logged record of an earlier contact from Mr C about a road defect in a particular place. When Mr C raised the matter by email several weeks later, the council acted appropriately. On the third complaint, relating to three other places, our investigation found that the council’s responses were reasonable. Finally, we did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to respond appropriately to Mr C's reports of road defects. Reports by members of the public were supplementary to the council’s inspection regime and were used to make the council aware of emerging defects.

Summary

The area of the town where Mr C lives was excluded from the council's controlled parking proposals and Mr C and another resident felt that the parking problems had worsened since then. Mr C pressed for his area to be added to the controlled parking zone and organised a survey of residents, which met with a positive response to the introduction of controls. Mr C complained that the council delayed in progressing the matter; did not adequately explain a public consultation process they undertook; and the timing of the consultation was inappropriate, denying the local community council the opportunity to comment. Mr C was also unhappy about action taken by officers following a series of meetings and alleged the council had cancelled at short notice a public meeting arranged by the community council.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's five complaints. The council explained that they had perceived that not all local residents supported the introduction of controlled parking, and so decided to conduct a public consultation. This was, however, delayed because of parliamentary elections. Our investigation did not find the explanation of the purpose and timing of this inappropriate. The consultation revealed a significant body of objection in the area, and when this was reported, the committee decided to take no immediate action. A later meeting with officers had involved robust disagreement. On the basis of the council officers’ report, Mr C was then sent a warning about his future conduct and he himself submitted a formal complaint. After this, the council decided that, in the lead up period to local elections, officers should not participate in a public meeting arranged by the community council, although officers later attended a re-arranged meeting.

Summary

Ms C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained about the council on behalf of her constituent (Mr A). Mr A had originally approached the council to seek permission to operate a car cleaning business from a council car park. The council refused this on the basis that there was a general presumption against the carrying out of businesses in their car parks. Following this, Ms C contacted the council on behalf of Mr A and after some communication, the council offered him the opportunity to operate his business on a two month trial basis, subject to the approval of a business plan. A significant period of time passed before Mr A's business plan reached the council. By then, they had introduced a parking order prohibiting the cleaning or washing of vehicles in any council car park, and on that basis the application was refused.

Ms C complained to us that the council failed to appropriately consider Mr A's application to operate a car cleaning business; unreasonably delayed in responding to his concerns; inappropriately failed to tell her about an order being considered by committee in relation to the setting up of businesses in council car parks; and that the order unfairly allowed some businesses to operate but not Mr A's.

After investigating these complaints, we did not uphold them. We were satisfied the council properly considered Mr A's proposal before the introduction of the order and had explained their position clearly. Although Mr A felt the submission of a business plan was unnecessary, the council were entitled to ask for this before deciding whether to allow him to operate his business. In addition, the evidence available confirmed that the council responded to concerns raised by Mr A, and others on his behalf, within a reasonable time. The process for notifying people about orders being considered by committee was to advertise in local newspapers, with information also available on the council's website. The parking order was advertised by the council but no objections were received. Lastly, the parking order specifically prohibited the cleaning or washing of vehicles in council car parks. It gave the council discretion to allow certain businesses to operate that did not involve the cleaning or washing of vehicles, when it was appropriate to do so.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of two planning applications. He said that the planning report contained inaccuracies and had not dealt with issues of window distances, subdivision of land and loss of amenity. He also said that archaeological and tree survey requirements were not undertaken. Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of enforcement matters at the site.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council's actions were reasonable and they had dealt with the applications properly. We were also satisfied that the council's position that there were no archaeological issues in this case was reasonable and we found no evidence of fault in relation to the council's decision that there was no need for a tree survey. Finally, we were satisfied that the action the council took in dealing with the enforcement matters raised by Mr C was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C said that a planning application was made to infill a small building site, which was approved by the council's area planning committee, subject to conditions. Shortly afterwards, he wrote to the planning department saying that the applicant for permission had provided incorrect information, particularly about ownership, and that the application should be declared invalid. The council looked into this but confirmed that the planning permission stood. Mr C complained that, despite his continued representations on the matter, the council took the view that although they had a duty to take action where an offence had occurred, the situation was not clear cut. They had said that they did not believe the applicant had knowingly and recklessly made incorrect statements. They said they had attempted to establish the situation but the applicant had declined to provide more detail - if the land was owned by someone other than the applicant, he would be unable to build, and ownership rights were a matter for the courts.

As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a planning adviser. This confirmed that an applicant does not have to own the land for which they seek planning permission and that after receiving Mr C's allegations, the council had taken appropriate and reasonable action in the event that the applicant wished to reconsider his position.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to deal correctly with his representations about the application and said that rather than dealing with them in terms of planning, he was required to make a formal complaint through the council's complaints and feedback procedure. We looked at this procedure, and how the council had acted in relation to it, and found that the council had followed their policy.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the way in which the council handled her representations against a planning application, which she submitted after the cut-off date. She was dissatisfied that, after being told that late representations would be taken into account, hers were not considered by the committee that looked at the application.

During our investigation we found that while there was no statutory requirement to accept late representations, the council had, in an attempt to be helpful, circulated these to elected members. As the planning department had received Mrs C's representations after the committee agenda was circulated, it was decided not to copy these to the committee. However, staff had read them to confirm that they raised no new information or material issues that would significantly alter the assessment and recommendation in relation to the planning application. While the council accepted that there had been a breakdown in communication, for which they had apologised, our investigation found that they were not obliged to accept late representations. We also found no evidence that the committee failed to take account of all relevant material considerations before reaching their decision.

In addition, as a result of this case, the council stopped the practice of circulating late letters of objection against a planning application, and said that any late letters would instead be sent to the planning service for review.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about how the council handled a planning application to vary a condition that had been imposed on a previously granted planning permission. Mr C was unhappy that the council had accepted supporting information provided by the applicant without requesting further evidence from them. He also complained that as the original application had been granted on appeal, the new application should have been referred back to the Scottish Government.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found no fault in the council's handling of the application. The information provided by the applicant, while useful, was not material in the determination of the application and so the council did not require any further evidence of proof. We found no evidence that the council failed to take account of all relevant material considerations. There was also no requirement on the council to refer the application to the Scottish Government.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association retrospectively granted their tenant, one of his neighbours, permission to keep a dog which he considered represented a danger to children. Mr C said that after this happened, objections were registered. These were heard at an appeal and upheld, and the association revoked the permission. However, when the neighbour appealed against this decision, permission for her to keep the dog was reinstated. Mr C complained that the association inappropriately granted this permission and took too long to go through the appeal process, which he said also caused confusion. He also complained that the association had failed to ensure that a suitable fence was erected in the neighbour's garden.

We carefully considered this complaint, and reviewed all the correspondence and photographs provided by Mr C. We made detailed enquiries of the association, examined how they dealt with Mr C's concerns, and reviewed their investigations into his complaint. We also examined relevant policies and procedures including the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 (and Amendment Act 1997) and the association's 'permission to keep a pet' policy.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the association had appropriately granted permission for the neighbour to keep the dog, and had carried out both the first and second appeal processes appropriately and with transparency. In recognition of Mr C's concerns, they had attached provisions to the granting of the permission. We also found that, once the relevant planning permission had been obtained, the association had installed appropriate fencing.