Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that at times the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had required him to share a cell that was not of an adequate size to accommodate two prisoners. He had been sharing a cell that was intended as a single, but which has been fitted with bunk beds. The prison told him that this was not their preferred option, but it is often necessary for operational reasons. They confirmed that Rule 28 of the prison rules gives them scope to require prisoners to cell share and they said they were not aware of any risk factors that would prevent Mr C and previous cell mates from sharing.

Although it was clear that sharing a cell in these conditions must be frustrating and space will be tight, our investigation found that there is no legal minimum cell size standard. We also found that the prison governor does have discretion to require prisoners to cell share when operational reasons dictate. We have seen copies of the risk assessments carried out for Mr C and previous cell mates. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was returned from the prison open estate to closed conditions because it was suspected that he was involved in illicit substance misuse. Mr C said the decision was unreasonable because he had not done anything wrong and had not failed any drug tests. He also complained because he said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) inappropriately noted on his record that he had taken drugs.

The SPS are entitled to decide to downgrade a prisoner when evidence is available to suggest that the prisoner may be unsuitable for less secure conditions. We cannot question such a decision without evidence that the SPS did something wrong in that process. In considering Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that the SPS took the decision to return Mr C to closed conditions after following the proper process and considering all relevant information. We were also satisfied that they were entitled to record information about Mr C given that they suspected he was involved in unacceptable drug-related behaviour.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the SPS delayed in identifying that he needed to take part in a particular offending behaviour programme. He had already participated in one programme, and felt that his needs had not changed since he began his sentence. He was unhappy that the requirement for the second course was not flagged up earlier and felt that this set back his progress.

The prison told us that feedback from the first programme assessed Mr C as having outstanding needs and that he needed to complete an additional course. As such, there was no opportunity for this requirement to be identified earlier in Mr C's sentence, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C has business premises on the ground floor of a block of flats. His water and waste service is provided by Business Stream Ltd. His water meter is located in the kitchen inside his premises. He said that he had always operated the same business with the same two people but for a short period his consumption of water was abnormally high. He was concerned that his meter was wrong or that he might be on some kind of shared supply with others in the block. Checks by Scottish Water failed to establish the reason for the increased water usage or to confirm whether he was on a shared water supply. He complained to Business Stream Ltd but remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We found that although he was still unhappy and did not agree that the water had been used, he had been offered further investigations (for which he would probably initially have had to pay) but had not pursued these with Business Stream. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as we found that Business Stream's responses to his concerns were reasonable.
 

Summary
Mr C was concerned that the council decided not to fund repairs to his local private road (also known as an unadopted road). He complained that the predecessor council had, in 1988, entered into an agreement with residents to carry out surface repairs to these roads. He was of the view that the current council should honour this earlier agreement. The council responded that they had no legal duty to maintain private unadopted roads and advised that, due to budgetary pressures, they had decided to reduce the budget for the maintenance of private unadopted roads to zero for year 2011/12.

Our investigation considered Mr C's concerns and confirmed that the council does not have a duty to maintain these private roads in terms of their responsibilities under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. We also took the view that, although a policy statement was produced in 1988 detailing how any budget for maintenance of unadopted roads would be distributed, the council were entitled to make decisions in terms of their overall budget. They were, therefore, within their rights in deciding to reduce this maintenance budget to zero.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of a claimed right of way. Mr C considered that the route in question satisfied the criteria required to constitute it as a right of way. He accepted that the question of whether the route was in fact legally a right of way was for the courts and not for our office. However, he complained to us that the council failed to follow the correct process leading up to the decision in 2006 that the route was not a right of way.

Our investigation found that while the council had been unable to provide all the information considered when the original decision was taken in 2006 they had more recently considered the matter in response to Mr C's representations. We found that they had confirmed their position on the claimed right of way and had explained the reasons for their decision. We did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C bought a house in a small rural development of five houses. The property company that built the development used part of an adjoining field to store containers and building equipment. After the last of the residents moved in (in autumn 2009) they pursued with the council the unsightliness of the storage area. The council served an enforcement notice giving the company the minimum 28 days to stop using the site as a builders' yard and to remove all containers, building materials, plant and machinery.

The company appealed to Scottish Ministers. They dismissed the appeal but gave the company six months to comply. That period ended in December 2010. The council continued to pursue with the company the removal of remaining items. Mr C took his complaint back to the council and by the summer of 2011 the last of the items had been removed. Against that background, the Procurator Fiscal indicated that he would take no action against the company. As the council had continued to pursue the matter throughout the period to a successful conclusion, our investigation did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to ensure that the site was cleared to an agreed level in a timely manner.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C bought their house in early 2010. It was part of a small, new development. The neighbouring property was occupied in late 2010 and in October that year the neighbours made a planning application for a double garage and store. Mr and Mrs C objected to this development but the application was granted. As they believed there had been errors and omissions associated with the planning process, Mr and Mrs C made a formal complaint to the council.

In the meantime, the neighbours made a further planning application for alterations and for an extension. This, too, was subsequently approved by the council, subject to conditions. Mr and Mrs C continued to complain that the council failed properly to consider the applications.

When we investigated the complaint we asked one of our planning advisers to provide advice on the way in which the council considered the applications. Our adviser was satisfied that the council followed the relevant process and acted appropriately.

Summary
Mr C lives in a building, part of which had previously been converted to shop premises. Agents for the owners of the shop had discussions with council officers and followed these up with an application for planning consent to extend the premises to the front and side. Changes in practice related to the Planning etc Scotland Act 2006 meant that it was the council's responsibility to have notified six parties, including Mr C, about the planning application. Mr C did not receive notification and the application was approved by officers under delegated powers. When work started, Mr C contacted his solicitors to make a complaint.

The solicitors made three complaints on behalf of Mr C. They complained that the council had: failed in their duty to carry out neighbour notification in respect of the application, failed to properly evaluate parking at the site as part of their consideration of the application, and refused to take appropriate action on complaints about noise nuisance. The solicitors said that Mr C had been disadvantaged as a result of not being notified and in the alleged lack of consideration given to material planning issues, most notably parking. They obtained affidavits (statements) from four other residents, all of whom said that they too had not received neighbour notification.

Following the advice of our planning adviser, we decided not to uphold these complaints. On the first complaint, although five parties claimed they had not been notified, the council's records indicated that the notifications were sent. We took the view that the council's duty did not extend to confirming or tracking receipt of these. On the second complaint, the issue of parking had clearly been considered, both before the application was made and as part of the assessment of the application. On the third complaint the alleged noise nuisance had been appropriately investigated by environmental officers.

Summary
Mrs C's children were in the care of an afterschool club. While walking to the park, staff overheard the children say something which, Mrs C said, was misconstrued. As a consequence, a child concern referral form was completed and the matter was reported to the social work department. Mrs C said that when she went to collect her children the next day, the issue was raised and she was questioned about it. She said that she was given only vague information in return and she was concerned that the children's conversation had been incorrectly reported. Mrs C complained that the council treated both her and her family unfairly and did not properly investigate her concerns. She also complained about the way in which the council handled her complaint.

We looked at all the relevant documentation including the council complaints file, complaints policy and relevant procedures. However, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints as we found that the council acted in accordance with their stated policies and those which applied nationally. We found no evidence to suggest that the council treated Mrs C and her family unfairly or were less than objective. Mrs C was concerned that a record of the situation would remain with her children indefinitely, but we did not find this to be the case. Finally, we found that the council dealt with her complaint in line with their complaints policy.