Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the programmes case management board (PCMB) considered false information before deciding what programmes he should be required to participate in. Mr C identified information in the record of the PCMB meeting which he felt was incorrect.

Before we investigated Mr C's complaint, the prison acknowledged that the PCMB had incorrectly noted that Mr C had committed a number of violent offences against different members of his family. Only a couple of those offences had been committed by Mr C against family members. However, the prison advised Mr C that the PCMB outcome was not affected because he still had the same number of convictions for violent offences.

As part of our investigation, we reviewed all of the information that the PCMB considered about Mr C before reaching its decision on what programmes he should participate in. In particular, we looked at the information Mr C still felt was incorrect. We were satisfied that information considered by the PCMB was relevant and appropriate and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about how the council handled their objections to a planning application that their neighbour submitted, which involved the demolition of an existing conservatory and the building of a single storey extension.

Mr and Mrs C submitted a letter of representation to the council objecting to the planning application because the planned extension included part of the mutually owned gable wall of the house. They were unhappy that the council did not take action against against their neighbour after they told the council that they were not notified of the proposed planning application, despite being co-owners of the main walls and roof of the divided house.

Mr and Mrs C were also unhappy that the wording of the development advisory note to their neighbour had been changed following a meeting of the development management committee, and that the council did not take appropriate action to correct the advisory note after it was drawn to the chief executive's attention.

Our investigation found that, whilst it appeared there had been an irregularity with the submission of the land ownership certificate by the applicant, we did not consider that it amounted to significant administrative error. Mr and Mrs C were able to submit their representations in relation to the planning application, which in turn were properly considered by the council. In relation to the advisory note, we established that such notes have no legal bearing and are outwith the scope of the formal legislative planning process. Therefore, we considered that the council had not acted unreasonably in amending the wording.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant consent to his neighbour to drop the kerb fronting his property to provide a paved area for parking. Mr C complained that the finished work did not comply with the consent or the assurances he had been given that action would be taken to rectify this, and said that the effect of this was a loss of parking space in an already congested street.

We found that the council had told Mr C at the time of his initial complaint that his neighbour's proposal was regarded as permitted development, and so did not require planning permission. Mr C was told that a permit would be required to lower the kerb. He complained to the council when the works were completed, saying that the final length of the actual dropped kerb was longer than he had been told would be permitted.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council had investigated it and, from inspection of the site and discussion, had accepted the contractor's explanation for the decision to alter the length of the dropped kerb. When permission was given to drop the kerb, the width of the white access protection marking line was set at 4.5 metres. The council then decided that this could be reduced from 4.5 metres to 3.6 metres, to minimise the loss of resident parking space. The council had told Mr C this in their correspondence with him. We were satisfied that the council had considered his concerns and exercised their discretion in the matter in a reasonable and fair way.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a repair to a communal drain. He complained that the council had failed to treat it as a Right to Repair issue and should have compensated him £100 for not dealing with the repair quickly enough; had delayed in undertaking the repair; and in cleaning up the affected area; had failed to arrange for further work to the concrete slabs surrounding the sewer in the communal area; and that there was delay and inaccuracy by the council in responding to his complaints.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation established that this type of repair was not covered in the prescribed list of repairs to tenanted property under the Right to Repair scheme, as set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We also found that the repair to unblock the drain was completed within the terms of the council's repairs policy; and as there is no specific timescale for cleaning repairs, and this was attended to within a short period of time, we did not find that there was delay in cleaning up the area.

The council told us that they had not been aware of Mr C's concerns about the condition of the concrete slabs before we contacted them about this, and it was later confirmed that this had been attended to. We also found that the council had responded to the complaint within the required timescales and, while there was a regrettable minor inaccuracy in the council's response to Mr C about the time and date for completion of the repair, it did not amount to a significant or material failure.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's property flooded on two occasions, once in 2009 and again in 2011. There was some uncertainty as to whether the flood water was rain or river water, however, as it was flowing onto their property via the public highway, they felt the council were responsible for taking action to prevent this. We identified that, in responding to the flooding reports, the council had surveyed the situation and taken steps to try to assist. We noted that they had attempted to have a neighbouring land owner address his private drainage system and they also carried out some clearance and repair works on the surrounding drainage. Following this, they were satisfied that the road drainage was fit to cope with normal conditions.

The council highlighted that responsibility for protecting their property from flooding lay with Mr and Mrs C and they offered advice on further steps they could consider taking to reduce the flood risk. The recently enacted flood prevention legislation requires the council to carry out clearance and repair works on bodies of water where they feel that this will substantially reduce the risk of flooding. In this instance, they were not persuaded that further clearance and repair works alone would substantially reduce this risk. This was a matter that the council were entitled to decide, and we cannot look at such a decision unless there is evidence of something going wrong in the way in which it was taken. We were satisfied that the council appropriately investigated Mr and Mrs C's concerns and took what we considered to be reasonable action to try to assist. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to assist her in finding safe accommodation when she informed them that she was being stalked and harassed by a local man. When Ms C then moved to two different properties through a mutual exchange programme, she raised a further complaint that the council did not properly consider another request to be re-housed due to noisy neighbours and persistent youth disorder outside her home.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that there was insufficient information reported to the council about Ms C's alleged stalker for them to act. The evidence showed that the only records that the council had about this were noted in Ms C's housing application and that they had contacted the local police about these concerns. However, the police had told the council that they had no record of Ms C having reported being stalked. There was also little evidence of Ms C reporting persistent noise by local youths or her neighbours to the council. Therefore, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably in not awarding Ms C priority housing.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of issues about the handling of a planning application for a development next to her home. She said that the council did not reasonably consider the application and did not reasonably respond to concerns raised during the construction of the development. Ms C also raised concerns about the handling of her representations.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that the council had taken account of the 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 complied with their guidelines.

We were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council took into consideration issues about privacy and overlooking, and the representations made by Ms C. We also found that the council had reasonably considered the proposed changes to the planning permission originally granted, had taken appropriate action and had responded to the concerns raised by Ms C. Finally, we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had provided Ms C with reasoned responses to the issues she raised.

Summary

Mrs C said that her husband (Mr C), who had terminal cancer, had fallen from his bed which was in a side room in the hospital, and died later that day. Mrs C felt that staff should have kept a better watch on her husband as he had lain on the floor for some time. She felt that the level of investigation of her complaint was inadequate.

In response to Mrs C's complaint, the board had apologised that the level of observation carried out on Mr C overnight was inadequate, and said that they had reminded staff of their responsibilities. They also explained that Mr C was assessed as at low risk of falling and when he was discovered on the floor he was examined by a doctor and put back to bed. Mr C had been placed in the side room for privacy, and to allow the family flexibility in visiting. Our investigation noted that it was good practice for the board to have placed Mr C in the side room for privacy reasons. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the board had properly investigated Mrs C's concerns.

Summary

Ms C complained that a medical practice she was registered with failed to properly assess her or her children with regard to their symptoms. Ms C was unhappy with the practice's assessment of her thyroid (a gland in the front inside area of the neck) and matters related to a parasite (an organism that lives on or in the body (host) from which it feeds) that she believed she and her family were suffering from.

We noted that Ms C was registered with the practice for approximately three months and within that period, tests were carried out on both Ms C and her two children. We considered that the practice had carried out reasonable and appropriate investigations and that there was no evidence of parasites.

Summary

Ms C complained that a medical practice she was registered with failed to carry out adequate assessments or arrange appropriate investigations to diagnose the symptoms she presented with. Ms C was mainly concerned that the practice had not monitored her thyroid (a gland in the inside front area of the neck) or recognised the positive impact of a particular drug on her condition.

We noted that Ms C might have received more consistent care had she not seen so many different doctors there over the course of two years. However, we considered that overall the medical practice carried out reasonable investigations and made appropriate specialist referrals in response to Ms C's ongoing symptoms. The practice have since provided evidence to show that their use of locum (temporary) doctors has reduced.