Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

The council proposed to change the catchment area of the primary school that Mrs C's child attends. The proposed changes meant that children from Street X would in future attend a different primary when starting school. Mrs C lives in Street X, and had expected that her second child would go to the same school as her first, so she was unhappy with the proposals and contributed to the consultation on them. The council's education executive, however, decided to accept the proposals, although with some alterations. The alterations meant that Street Y would remain in the school's original catchment area, but not Street X.

Mrs C felt this was unfair and complained to the council. She complained that they had failed to adequately inform directly affected parents of the proposed changes and had failed to adequately consult members of the public about the decision to retain the catchment area of Street Y. She further complained that the chief executive had failed to give an adequate response to her complaint that the decision to retain the catchment area of Street Y was unfair to pupils in Street X, where circumstances were the same.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council's method of informing directly affected parents of the proposed changes was reasonable, as was the decision that no further consultation was required about the decision to retain the catchment area of street Y. The chief executive had explained that the decisions on the proposals were taken by the education executive following consideration of all submissions to the consultation, and the council officer report on the outcome of the consultation. We found this to have been an adequate response to Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who was homeless, said he was duped into bidding for a property that he did not want when the council used a misleading image to advertise the property. The picture used was a computer generated image which Mr C said bore no resemblance to the actual building being constructed and the council did not disclose that it was a multi-storey building. Mr C said that, as a recovering drug addict, the thought of living in a multi-storey block filled him with anxiety. The council, however, said they had fulfilled their statutory duty by making him an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. As they had fulfilled their duty under the homelessness legislation, the council removed his silver priority (a higher priority given to people in certain circumstances who are waiting to be housed). Mr C said that the medical evidence he provided concerning his grounds for refusing the property, and details of his personal circumstances, were not taken into consideration either at the initial decision to remove his priority, or when he appealed.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council acknowledged that the picture was an artist's impression, but said that the details included on the advert made it clear that the property had not yet been built. Having looked at the image, we found that it was quite clearly an artist's impression of what the building was expected to look like and the description of the property explained that it was a 'new build' and included a lift. We did not consider this unreasonable and found that the council had acted in accordance with their legislative duties and responsibilities and the code of guidance on homelessness in arriving at their decision to remove Mr C's silver priority when he refused a reasonable offer of accommodation.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council street cleaning team had falsely completed work sheets on two occasions and that the council had not responded appropriately to complaints about this. Mr C said the streets around his home had not been cleaned on the two days in question and provided photographs of litter and leaves on the streets around his home taken over a three week period before and after the days in question. Mr C complained to the council but was dissatisfied with the council's response, and said that the council had not directly addressed his complaint about falsification.

When we investigated, we found that the work sheet in question was an operational route sheet which was subject to change according to priority. The council said that they had investigated Mr C's complaint. The cleaning team confirmed they had followed the operational route sheet on the days in question and had cleaned the streets. The sheet did not indicate to what extent each street had been cleaned and the council accepted that Mr C's street may not have been completely delittered. However, we did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence of falsification on the part of the street cleaning teams. The photographs provided by Mr C were of limited evidential value, and did not provide a whole street picture which would enable us to carry out a before and after comparison.

We also found that the council had written to Mr C's MP after the complaint was made, refuting the allegation of falsification. We did not uphold the complaint about the council's failure to respond properly, as the council had made their position on the matter of falsification clear. Mr C had received a copy of the council's letter from his MP.

Summary

Mr C lived in a ground floor property next to a secondary school, a sheltered housing and day care complex, and an area of open ground (the plot). The plot had previously contained a pond with fluctuating water levels. This area was used to store materials for the construction of the sheltered housing and day care complex. Some three years later, according to Mr C, the plot was filled in and used as a site compound and storage area by contractors employed by a consortium that were redeveloping the school. Mr C had flooding problems at his home, and traced the start of them to the time when the plot was filled in. Mr C complained that the council acted unreasonably in allowing a company contracted by them to infill a site, resulting in severe flooding to his property, and that the council then failed to take adequate action to resolve the flooding problem.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the council were told about any proposal to infill or use the plot in conjunction with the redevelopment works at the school. On the second complaint, it was evident that after being alerted to significant flooding the council put in place extensive measures to prevent a recurrence.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, he alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, did not reasonably consider other options for the site, did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site and did not keep adequate records of the consultation process.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of the four elements of Mr C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate; the other options had been reasonably considered; and the council's reasons for selecting the preferred site were set out in the officers' reports and committee minutes. We also considered that the council had kept adequate records of the process.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, and did not reasonably consider other options for the site.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold either of the two elements of Ms C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate, and that other options had been reasonably considered.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, did not reasonably consider other options for the site, and did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of the three elements of Mrs C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate; the other options had been reasonably considered; and the council's reasons for selecting the preferred site were set out in the officers' reports and committee minutes.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council failed to provide them with a house that was suitably sound insulated, and failed to take effective action when they reported antisocial behaviour by a number of neighbours.

The council explained that they carried out appropriate tests and could confirm that the house met the relevant standards in terms of sound insulation. They also explained that they had taken action in line with their policies in response to all Mr C and Ms C's reports of antisocial behaviour.

We did not uphold the complaint as, from our review of the evidence, we found that the council carried out appropriate testing on Mr C and Ms C's home which complied with the relevant technical specifications. In addition, we reviewed their actions in response to Mr C and Ms C's complaints of antisocial behaviour and established that each report was investigated and, where corroboration could be obtained, action was indeed taken, in line with their antisocial behaviour policies.

Summary

Mr C reported the possible misuse of a blue badge in a public car park to the council and did not receive a reply. When he reminded the council about this, Mr C received an apology for the delay and an assurance that the matter would be investigated and appropriate action would be taken. When Mr C asked for more information about what action would be taken, he was told that the badge holder would be written to. He was also told that the council were satisfied that the holder legitimately qualified for a badge but that they could not provide Mr C with details of the investigation as this was sensitive information. From the information that was made available, Mr C was not satisfied that the investigation into his complaint had been handled properly, or how the officers who had investigated his complaint about the handling of the matter could have reached this conclusion. Mr C also complained that the council did not meet the timescales for responding to his complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the evidence confirmed that the council had investigated Mr C's complaint and taken appropriate action. We were satisfied that their reply was factually correct and set out the position as clearly as was possible, given that the information which could be released to him was limited as it related to personal information about a third party. This meant the council could not give him all the information he wanted. Finally we found that, although there was a delay in acknowledging Mr C's initial contact about the matter, the council had responded to later correspondence in accordance with their service standards.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C said they were told in 2010 that their home was to be demolished as part of a regeneration programme and they would be allocated a new-build property. In March/April 2011, the construction company building the new homes went bankrupt and the building site was sealed. Mr and Mrs C said that since then they had been misled as to when they would be re-housed. They also said that they had not been offered suitable temporary accommodation.

We did not uphold their complaints. Our investigation found that the original contractor for the project went into administration in early 2011 which meant that the housing association had to put the contract out to tender again. It was not until April 2012 that a new contractor was appointed. Throughout that period, and up to the date of our investigation, the housing association had regularly written to Mr and Mrs C updating them on the situation. The letters all made clear that the housing association would be back in touch once they had further information, and invited Mr and Mrs C to contact them if they had any questions. We also found that, wherever possible, the housing association gave provisional dates for entry in terms of the information they had at the time.

It was also clear that the housing association told Mr and Mrs C that they could offer temporary accommodation, but that Mr and Mrs C had declined this on the grounds that it would not be practical to move into such accommodation and did not want to be inconvenienced by doing so. There was no evidence to suggest they were offered a specific property that they deemed to be unsuitable.