Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unable to purchase books from a supplier of his choice. We explained to Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were entitled to make decisions such as this, and that our only role was to consider if there had been maladministration in the way they had taken this decision.

Our investigation found that the decision had been taken for security reasons, and applied to all prisoners in the prison. We were, therefore, satisfied that the decision was taken after careful consideration of relevant factors, namely the safety and security of the prison. We also noted that, since Mr C's complaint, SPS had introduced a tighter policy across all prisons for prisoners' receipt of books. This meant that, regardless of the situation at the time of his complaint, he would no longer have been able to obtain the books he wanted.

Summary

Mr C applied for a vacancy in a prison workshop. He complained that the prison unreasonably rejected his application. The prison advised Mr C that there was a risk to his safety if they allowed him to participate in the workshop due to intelligence (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service that affects an individual prisoner) they had received. Mr C told us that he was allowed to participate in other activities where there were no restrictions, such as in the exercise yard.

Our investigation found that under Rule 82 (1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institution (Scotland) Rules 2011, every prisoner is required to work, subject to certain provisions. Rule 82(2)(b) states that the governor of the prison also has the discretion to excuse a prisoner from work on any other ground. As there was intelligence held to support the governor's decision, we did not consider that the prison acted unreasonably in not allowing Mr C to participate in the workshop. During the course of our enquiries the prison also told us that Mr C was not allowed to participate in two other workshops. They provided evidence showing the reasons for this. We noted that while Rule 84(1) says that the governor must provide purposeful activities for prisoners, sub-section (b) says that this is so far as reasonably practicable and takes into account the requirements of the operation and maintenance of the prison.

We concluded that there was no evidence that the prison failed to follow their processes, and that the governor used his discretion in reviewing the intelligence and deciding what should happen, as he was entitled to do.

Summary

Mrs C said that her children had been subjected to bullying while travelling on the school bus as well as on one occasion in school. She complained that over several months she had contacted the school about the matter. She also said she had spoken to the head teacher, but that nothing was done to resolve this. The school said that as the incidents happened on the school bus, they were outwith their control.

Our investigation found that it is parents or carers who are responsible for the conduct of children while they are using school transport, rather than the school, and we did not uphold Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following a storm, a neighbour's tree fell across the garden ground of a number of residents. One of the residents was a council tenant and, as a result, the council offered to arrange for contractors to remove the tree and large tree stump. However, a number of residents refused to contribute towards the costs of removal, so the council arranged for the tree to be cut into sections and for the sections which lay in their tenant's garden to be removed. While the tree was being cut up, its root ball fell back into the hole that was made when the tree fell, with the roots protruding into Mr C's garden. Mr C was unhappy that the council allowed this to happen, and felt that the root should have remained where it was.

Our investigation found that this was, essentially, a private legal matter between residents, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had acted appropriately in attempting to co-ordinate the removal of the tree and its stump and, when some residents refused to contribute, appropriately arranged to remove the parts relating to their own tenant's property.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were granted planning permission to build a property. As a pre-requisite to issue planning consent, however, the council decided that Mr and Mrs C had to make an education contribution. This is a payment developers must make to contribute to school provision if their development meets certain criteria. To determine whether a developer must make a contribution a method is used that involves a calculation. Mr and Mrs C disputed the calculation. They said that if the council had used another calculation they would not have to pay an education contribution. They were also concerned that the figure the council arrived at changed over the course of their application.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold this complaint. The adviser confirmed that it was appropriate for the council to determine the method and calculation themselves. The adviser also said that the change to the figure was not unreasonable in attempting to reach agreement on a planning contribution.

Summary

Mr C applied for planning permission to install solar panels in the grounds of his property, which was a Grade B listed building. He told us that he had intended to take advantage of the government's feed-in tariff scheme, which paid energy producers for excess electricity that was returned to the national grid. The council approved the planning application, but applied a condition requiring him to dismantle the equipment after ten years. Whilst they advised him that he could reapply after ten years to extend the permission, Mr C was reluctant to proceed on this basis. He asked for the condition to be reviewed by the planning Local Review Body (LRB), noting that the feed-in tariff scheme was intended to run over a 25 year period. The LRB concluded that a 25 year time-limited condition would be more appropriate and granted planning permission on that basis. However, while Mr C was pursuing his appeal with the LRB, the government changed the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme, making his solar panels financially non-viable.

Mr C complained that the council applied a 'catch-all' condition, normally used for wind turbines, to his planned solar panel installation. He also complained that they should have made him aware of the ten year condition at the pre-application stage, as it is applied consistently across all renewable energy developments. Mr C felt that the council should have applied conditions that reflected the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme.

Our investigation confirmed that Mr C had attended a pre-application meeting with the council's planning officer. Whilst the planning officer said that she had told Mr C about the ten year condition, there was no record of this and we were unable to confirm what information, if any, was provided. We found that it would have been good practice for the council to provide details of any standard conditions at the pre-application stage, but noted that there was no statutory obligation for them to do so. We learned that the council have since accepted that they could provide this information and have taken steps to ensure that it is provided in the future.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We considered it reasonable for the council to impose time-limited conditions on applications for renewable energy projects, and were satisfied that any timescale set was at their discretion. We did not find that the feed-in tariff scheme should have been a material consideration (a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) when determining the planning application, but felt that they could have taken into account the financial viability of Mr C's project. However, we considered it reasonable for the council to take a cautious approach in the first instance and for such matters to be addressed at a review stage if necessary. Whilst the timing of the changes to the feed-in tariff scheme were unfortunate, the council would not have been able to predict these and we were satisfied that the planning process operated as it was intended to.

We were also satisfied that it was reasonable of the council to apply their standard ten year condition to solar panel installations, despite evidence that this had been used for wind turbines in the past. We considered the key issue to be the requirement to dismantle any redundant or obsolete equipment, rather than the nature of the equipment itself.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's landlord registration scheme. He said that the council had unreasonably put him on the register after a phone call, when their written guidance clearly says that applications should be made online or by paper application form.

Our investigation found, however, that this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. We took the view that they acted in good faith for the benefit of Mr C, who might otherwise have been at risk of being reported to the procurator fiscal.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action about unauthorised works in a harbour near his home. He maintained that the council had passively watched these works over a period of time, knowing that as responsible planning authority they were legally required to take enforcement action to stop them; that they pretended for several months that they were unaware of their legal rights and their duty to take enforcement action; and that they had jeopardised the outcome of any future application for planning consent for these works by demonstrating disregard for the rights, views and wishes of the people in the town.

When we first received the complaint, a decision about the development was still going through the planning process. Because of this, we told Mr C that it would not be appropriate to investigate at that time. After the council confirmed to us that an application for retrospective planning consent had been granted, we investigated Mr C's complaints but did not uphold them.

We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He noted that the planning background was complex in that parts of the harbour were listed; the harbour was in a conservation area; the harbour authority were a statutory undertaker (ie that they had legal rights to carry out certain developments and works) and claimed that the development was permitted; some of the works were below the high water mark; and claims had been made that because of works undertaken in the past it was not possible to take successful enforcement action. He also pointed out that the council's enforcement powers were discretionary rather than mandatory. We found that the council had opened an enforcement file before Mr C had contacted them. They had also properly liaised with the developer and his agents and had reported to the appropriate committee on four occasions, explaining that they had asked the developer to submit an application for retrospective planning consent. This was later validated. Mr C's complaint also related to deficiencies in the local availability of plans for inspection but we found that the council had taken swift action to remedy the problem.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application to erect a wind turbine near his property. In particular, he disagreed with the council that he did not have a notifiable interest and was dissatisfied that he had not received neighbour notification. He also maintained that the council had ignored relevant guidelines when recommending the development for approval, and that the planning report had contained inaccurate and potentially misleading information.

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 neighbour notification procedures and were satisfied that, in line with those procedures, Mr C did not have a notifiable interest in the proposed development. We also found no evidence that the council had failed to take account of all relevant material considerations (genuine planning considerations related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) and were satisfied that elected members had full information before reaching a decision on the development.

Summary

In September 2011, the hospital introduced a new clinical model, which set up new hub and cluster units (a central point and areas for activities). Each of the four hubs supports a cluster of three 12-bedded wards, with various therapeutic, physical, creative and social activities taking place in the hub. There is a central unit where more formal therapies and educational activities are held.

Mr C, who is a patient in the hospital, complained that patients were unreasonably pressured to attend activities in the hub area and that alternatives to attending there were limited. Our investigation found that the board had already addressed staff recruitment and training issues and reviewed policies to allow a more flexible use of resources. This had allowed them to keep more wards open while still staffing the hubs, and they confirmed that in the last month Mr C's ward had not been closed. They also pointed out that sometimes they cannot keep all areas open because of staffing and safety issues.

The hospital provided details of Mr C's personal programme of activities. We noted the steps that have been taken to review and improve practices at the hospital. Independent advice received from our medical adviser on a previous similar case was that positive progress had been made. Our adviser also said that staff often have to find a balance between encouraging patients to engage with therapies and activities and making them feel pressurised.

We took the view that it was not unreasonable for patients from one area to move elsewhere when there are short term difficulties. The matter of deciding how patients should spend their time, and where, is one for the board to consider and decide upon and we found no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the process of deciding how to go about this. On the basis of the information provided and the advice previously received from our adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.