Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr and Mrs C's son has a genetic condition, which means that he has very specific and challenging care needs. Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of their application for bathroom adaptations to meet his needs.

The council agreed to fund adaptations to the bathroom, but Mr and Mrs C felt that these were lacking and did not take their son's needs into full account. The couple pursued a complaint through to the council's Complaints Review Committee (CRC). They complained that this process took too long. They also complained that the council did not use the relevant legislation as intended, with flexibility and discretion and that their decision regarding the bathroom had been made without proper consideration of their son's needs.

On looking at this case, we found that the complaints and CRC process was completed in accordance with the timescales set out in the council's complaints procedure. We were also satisfied that the council showed flexibility and discretion in their consideration of the bathroom adaptations, as these went beyond the minimum requirements of the legislation and guidance. We found that the council showed awareness of Mr and Mrs C's son's specific needs and that their proposed bathroom adaptations supported the assessment carried out by their occupational therapist.

Summary
Mr C opted to pay his council tax instalments online. From 1 April 2008 the council required that, for those paying in this way, payments should start with a specified payment on 1 April and nine equal instalments on the first day of each succeeding month. When Mr C was late with his payments in April and May 2010, the council petitioned the sheriff for a summary warrant. This meant Mr C had to pay ten per cent more on the outstanding amount. Mr C told us that the council: issued the annual demand too late, allowing him insufficient time to make payment; discriminated against him as he did not pay by direct debit; failed to obtain proper authorisation to issue a summary warrant; unnecessarily shared information with their collection agents; and had not handled the complaint in accordance with their procedures.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had complied with the relevant regulations with regard to their annual demand and the process for obtaining a summary warrant. We also found that the council regarded payment by direct debit as the most efficient means of collection and so offered greater flexibility to such payers which we considered reasonable. There was no direct evidence that the council shared unnecessary information with the collection agents. Finally, although Mr C had pursued the complaint for over a year, the council had not been responsible for significant delay.

Summary
Mr C alleged that social work services were unhelpful with regard to the care of his late mother, who had dementia. He said that he was not properly involved in her care and was pushed into making decisions. He felt that when he made a formal complaint about the matter, the council showed a reluctance to deal with it and did not investigate appropriately.
Specifically, Mr C told us that the council unreasonably failed to provide patient transport to take his mother to respite care; for 21 months unreasonably failed to provide information on his mother's care and made inappropriate decisions about her care; unreasonably failed to remove a social worker from Mr C's mother's case; and failed to handle the complaint properly.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation revealed that no request had ever been made to transport Mr C's mother to respite care, nor had she been identified as requiring transport. In any case, there was no requirement for the council to offer this. The records showed that Mr C had been appropriately involved in decision making and had been kept fully informed. While it was clear that Mr C wanted a named social worker removed from his mother's case, he did not give reasons despite being asked to do so. In the circumstances, and as continuity was considered to be important to Mr C's mother, no change was made. The records also confirmed that the council had handled Mr C's complaint satisfactorily, and that he had failed to provide evidence to support his complaint, again despite being asked to do so.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a neighbour's conservatory. In particular Mr C complained that the council failed to comply with their guidance in relation to intervisibility and window distance and as a result had failed to protect his privacy in his own conservatory. He also complained that the council had failed to take account of his objections about privacy and overlooking, in that they had failed to take action when his neighbour had reduced in height the planting that had screened one of the windows in the conservatory.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council's guidance was intended to be just that - guidance - and that planning officers were free to use their professional judgement when processing planning applications. In this case the council had explained why, in relation to conservatories, they had decided that the guidelines regarding intervisibility and window distance could be relaxed. We found no evidence that the council did not take into account Mr C's objections to the planning application. They had also explained as the planting was not required as a planning condition they could take no action when Mr C's neighbour reduced its height.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had taken a decision to recover outstanding council tax by issuing a summary warrant. As a result he also received a statutory addition of ten percent of the outstanding sum. Mr C considered the council's actions were premature and did not take into account his changing circumstances.

The council explained that as Mr C failed to make his monthly payments on time he lost his right to pay by instalments. As he then failed to pay the full outstanding balance, he was served with a summary warrant and incurred a ten percent statutory additional charge. They pointed out that any changes to benefits arrangements did not remove the responsibility to the individual to pay outstanding tax.

We reviewed the council's procedures and the relevant legislation. From this review we were satisfied that the council followed the correct process when dealing with this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
In 2002 the council promoted the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvement Bill as an item of private legislation to the Scottish Parliament. Mr C attended public meetings and objected to the bill. He complained that during the consultation period the council failed to include full relevant information about the times and frequency of freight trains on the line.

Our investigation found that it was clear that an environmental impact report prepared and submitted to the Scottish Parliament was based on the expectation that there would be no night time trains. It was also, however, clear that the hours of operation of the line when re-opened could not be controlled by the Scottish Parliament or the council and that the council had pointed this out to the bill committee while the bill was being considered.

We did not uphold the complaint as we found no evidence suggesting that the council withheld information of which they were aware or deliberately sought to mislead residents or the Scottish Parliament.

Summary
Mrs C complained about the way in which the council handled an outline planning application to build a house for an agricultural worker on a site close to her home. She made a number of allegations about the availability of information which, she said, prejudiced her in making representations against the proposed development. She said the council had not properly considered her objections to the development.

When we investigated the complaint we reviewed the council's planning file and complaints file. The information in these confirmed that, while Mrs C wished to view planning details online, not all of it was available that way, as some was held only in hard copy. However, Mrs C did manage to see the relevant information. The council's area committee, who were to consider the outline planning application, also twice deferred their consideration, and took other action, in order to give Mrs C time to see the information and to consider her representations.

We noted that Mrs C was given this extra time in which to see the information and have her representations heard. Although she disagreed with the committee's eventual decision, we found no evidence that it was not properly taken.

Summary
Mr C made a complaint about the way the council social work department were monitoring a child who was the subject of a supervision order.

Mr C complained that the department was not monitoring the child sufficiently as the child was not complying with the requirements of the order. He said that they could confirm his evidence by contacting the child's school and/or the local police. When the department did not uphold his complaint Mr C took it to a social work complaints review committee (CRC), but they did not uphold it either. Mr C felt that neither the department nor the CRC tried to check the information he had provided.

Our investigation satisfied us that the department took appropriate action to establish the situation with the child. We were unable, due to confidentiality issues, to share specific details with Mr C but we were satisfied that appropriate and reasonable efforts were made to establish the level of the child's compliance with the order and to address the concerns that Mr C had expressed. We noted that, for the same reasons of confidentiality, the council and the CRC had been unable to share the details of their investigations with Mr C.

Summary
Mrs C complained that the council failed to properly inspect her flat to ensure that it complied with the terms of a building warrant. The flat was renovated in the late 1990s and Mrs C purchased the property in 2004.

On receipt of the complaint the council inspected the area of concern and agreed that it did not comply with the original building warrant. However, as the fault could not be detected without an external inspection (and the feature concerned was at some height on the building) they concluded that it was not reasonable for this to have been detected when carrying out the original inspection in 1996. They suggested that Mrs C contact the original developer to ask them to remedy the problem.

Mrs C complained to us that the council should have detected this problem in 1996. Our investigation found that the developer had certified that the works were carried out in compliance with the building warrant. As we took the view that the council had undertaken a 'reasonable inspection' at the time, and, therefore, had complied with their legal duties, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C raised a number of issues about how the council handled an instruction from their own planning committee in relation to a legally binding agreement to deliver the implementation of a controlled parking zone.

Mr C maintained that the relevant officers failed to follow the planning committee's instruction. He came to this view through his own understanding of the meaning of the instruction. Our investigation, however, found no evidence that the officers had not followed the committee's instruction. We also found that the council had responded to Mr C's representations and had explained why they had not agreed with his understanding of the instruction given by the planning committee.