Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his friend (Mr A) that the university failed to give reasonable consideration to the appeal he submitted on behalf of Mr A. Mr C complained that the university had failed to take account of, or give due weight to, the evidence he provided and that his correspondence had been ignored.

We found that Mr C's complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the Student Appeals Regulations. All of the available documentation and correspondence provided by Mr C had been carefully considered, but the view was taken that the terms for appeal had not been met. A letter was sent explaining this fully to Mr C. While it was clear that Mr C disagreed with this decision, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been failings or shortcomings in the appeal process. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS)'s handling of her application for funding. Mrs C applied for funding for her course through SAAS. The award was initially granted, however, it was then found that the course was not eligible, as it was not delivered by a publicly funded body. SAAS rescinded the fund for Mrs C's course and advised her of this. Mrs C complained that it was an error on SAAS' part which meant the course appeared to be eligible and it was unreasonable to rescind the funding. Mrs C appealed the decision, however SAAS' view remained the same. In the first response to the appeal SAAS' response referred to a different name for the course, stating the approved funding was for a course different from the one Mrs C was attending. This was not the case and in the second response to the appeal SAAS apologised for the confusion but still considered the decision to rescind the funding was reasonable.

We reviewed the information available relating to the communication and response to the administrative error. It was found that the information on SAAS's website, including this course as an eligible choice, was provided by a third party, not SAAS itself. We found that there had been a level of confusion due to the various names used for the same course, however this stemmed predominantly from information provided by a third party. The initial error that the course was included in the first place also stemmed from information provided by a third party. We considered the actions of SAAS on discovering the error to be reasonable. The course was removed from SAAS' website and SAAS apologised for the error in the initial appeal response. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s booking system is unreasonable. She said that it prevented her from returning to her work and education activities after an arranged visit. Ms C said that when she is scheduled to attend a visit that lasts up to an hour, a three hour slot is assigned and she has to return to her cell after the visit and remain there for the remaining duration of the slot. She was concerned that it would affect her parole if she did not attend activities.

We found that SPS provided a clear rationale (in terms of security and logistics) as to why three hour slots are assigned to individuals when they attend a scheduled visit. The SPS also advised that individuals can be taken to work or education activities after their visit if time permits. They confirmed that it would not affect Ms C's parole or progression if she could not attend activities due to a visit or appointment. We considered the booking system to be reasonable and, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C's child (Child A) has additional needs and is a primary school pupil. Miss  C complained to the council about the school's handling of her concerns about a playground incident involving Child A and three older children. Miss C complained that the school failed to inform her of the incident and to record it. She also raised concerns about the school's general communication and stated that they failed to provide her partner with weekly updates about Child A as agreed.

We found that the school dealt with the playground incident in a proportionate and reasonable manner. When the headteacher was made aware of the incident, they promptly arranged a meeting with Child A's parents to discuss their concerns. We also found that the school maintained weekly contact with Miss  C's partner as agreed. We found that this only stopped when Miss C informed the school that Child A had received a diagnosis of autism (a  developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and the school felt it was more appropriate to arrange a formal meeting. We concluded that the school's decision was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C submitted a housing application to the council, which was refused. Mr C complained that the council responded to his request unreasonably. The council said that allowing Mr C's request would have meant that the housing waiting list was effectively bypassed, and that there was a high demand in that area for the type of housing Mr C had requested.

We reviewed the relevant information and legislation. We found that the housing legislation gives the council discretion to consider what are reasonable grounds for refusing an application. It also allows for the council to refuse permission due to others waiting for housing who may have a greater need. We found that the explanation provided by the council was in line with the council's policies and with housing legislation. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about construction site noise at a development near to his property. In particular, that there was a lack of notification about out-of-hours noisy works, the necessity of working so late and the lack of alternative/mitigating measures used by the developer, and noisy work being carried out before 8.00am or outwith recommended times at weekends. He also asked the council to consider his complaint within the context of the statutory noise nuisance legislation contained in the Environmental Protection Act (the EPA).

The council had stated that there was not a statutory obligation to notify residents of out-of-hours noisy work but that it was good practice for the developer to do this. They highlighted that they had asked the developer to provide notifications to Mr C's address after he originally did not receive one. The council also stated that they had provided consent for out-of-hours noisy work to take pace. In addition to this, they discussed alternative/mitigating measures with the developer but it was decided that these would not be practical at this particular site. Finally, the council advised that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (the COPA) applies to construction site noise and it is not appropriate to use provisions under the EPA in cases like this. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We found the council's explanation for why they did not consider the noise complaints under the EPA to be reasonable. We did not consider that the EPA could not apply to construction site noise but we accepted the council's reasoning for this. We also considered the actions taken by the council were reasonable and in line with their obligations. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's response to his report of a breach of planning control. He also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to his complaint.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had provided a reasonable explanation about the actions they had taken in response to the alleged breach of planning. The council responded to the alleged breach within the appropriate timescales and had discretion to consider what the most appropriate response was. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Regarding complaints handling, we did find that the council's response to Mr C's complaint was outwith timescales. However, the response was thorough and provided a clear explanation of the actions taken. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to respond adequately to complaints about an unauthorised traveller site in her area. Ms C also said that the council's complaint response was inaccurate and that the council had lied about taking eviction proceedings against the travellers.

We found the council had acted in line with their policies and that there were not grounds for acting to move the travellers on. When the unauthorised site was causing a public nuisance, we found that the council did begin proceedings. We also found that the council's complaint response was not clearly worded, but that it was not inaccurate. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not taken action against their tenants who he suspected were operating a business from the property, in contravention of the tenancy agreement. The council responded noting that they had carried out visits to the tenant's property and, whilst they had concerns, there was not sufficient evidence available with respect to the allegations regarding a business. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to our office.

We found that the council had taken steps to investigate concerns about the activities of the tenants. This included liaising with neighbours, Police Scotland, Environmental Services and Trading Standards with respect to the activities of the tenant. The council followed up on concerns with the tenant, issuing formal warnings where they considered it was appropriate. They chose to manage the situation with the tenants, but also continued to act on concerns by neighbours. Whilst we considered there was some delay in the council concluding their investigations, we considered that, given the nature of the investigations required, the delay was not unreasonable. We concluded that the council reasonably followed their processes and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. He complained that the council had not ensured that there was accurate information to determine the application, that they had not considered the appropriate landscape policy, that they did not require additional public consultation after a change and did not ensure that the applicant adhered to planning conditions.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had accurate information to determine the application and had considered the appropriate landscape policy. Councils can exercise their own judgement when deciding whether additional public consultation is required. The council also have discretion on how to respond to reports of breach of planning control. We found that the council provided a clear explanation of their actions in their complaint response. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.