Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did their assessment of the programmes he was to complete in prison without considering all of the relevant information. He was also unhappy that they had cancelled some of his parent and child visits, which he felt had been unreasonable.

We considered the administrative handling of SPS's programmes assessment. That is because we are not a route for prisoners to appeal SPS's decisions about the programmes they are to complete. We looked at the evidence and it indicated that SPS had handled the matter in line with the relevant guidance. They had recorded the matters they had considered, the evidence reflected the information detailed in the guidance, and there was nothing to indicate that they had failed to consider relevant information. On that basis, we did not uphold Mr C's first complaint.

In terms of Mr C's visits, SPS confirmed that parent and child visits supplemented the visits he was entitled to receive under the prison rules. The paperwork indicated that several steps had to be taken before a prisoner was registered for the parent and child scheme. Mr C had wrongly been put on the scheme before those steps were complete, which was why his visit had been cancelled. SPS had acknowledged and apologised to Mr C for that error. By the time another visit was cancelled several months later, it was because all parent and child visits in a specific session were cancelled for operational reasons and it had not been Mr C's visit that was cancelled specifically on this occasion. We noted that Mr C remained registered for the scheme and could book future visits. Viewed as a whole, the evidence indicated that SPS had made decisions they were entitled to have made, that they explained their reasons to Mr C and that they had apologised for their initial error. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C's complaint concerns an application he made to the government's Rural Payments and Inspections Division for payments under the Basic Payment Scheme (a European Union farming subsidy scheme). Mr C told us that he had inadvertently failed to apply for a top up he was entitled to because he found the government's guidance on applications to be misleading. He had attempted to appeal this decision but the government refused to consider his appeal, as they did not consider they had made a relevant decision under The Rural Payments (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. In response to Mr C's complaint, the government accepted that the section of the guidance Mr C had referred to was insufficiently detailed, as it did not mention the top ups in question, but they did not consider it to be inaccurate or misleading.

On reviewing the guidance in place at the time Mr C made his application, we agreed with the government's position. The statement in question failed to mention the top ups, as Mr C had explained. However, this was only part of the introduction to what was extensive guidance on a complex system. When read in full, we considered the guidance clearly explained the top ups and how to apply for these.

We also considered the government's position on Mr C's appeal to be reasonable, although stressed that we could not definitively conclude that it was correct in law, as this was something that could only be confirmed by the courts. For this reason, we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about how her application for accessible housing points (points awarded to someone to help them find an alternative property, on the basis that their current home is not suitable for their needs) was assessed.

We found that the council had appropriately arranged for an assessment by an occupational therapist. We found that this was in line with the council's procedures. We also found that, when Ms C had requested another assessment a year later, this was provided. The amount of points awarded was increased following this second assessment, as Ms C's ability to carry out normal tasks in her current home had deteriorated. We considered that this was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for the demolition of a section of internal garden wall in a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission. Mr C complained that the report of handling of the application had not been reasonable because the author commented upon the state of repair of the wall having only seen it in photographs. Mr C also complained that the report did not reasonably evaluate the application in line with policy or justify its conclusions. He also complained that the council's responses to his complaints were contradictory and misrepresented both their policies and the significance of the visibility of the wall from public areas.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that it was reasonable in the circumstances that the report's author had only seen the wall in photographs. The adviser also gave their view that the council's consideration of relevant policies had been reasonable. We accepted the adviser's views and concluded that the council's evaluation of the application had been reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

We reached the view, taking into account the adviser's opinion, that the council's complaints responses did not misrepresent their policies or the significance of the visibility of the wall. We also concluded that the responses were not contradictory, but that they reasonably addressed the different points Mr C had raised at different stages of the complaints process. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action when a property built on the same development as his property was not in compliance with the planning permission which had been granted, in that it did not provide a reasonable turning area for the development. The council responded to Mr C's complaint and said that the turning area had been assessed since the development had been completed and was determined to be suitable for purpose, despite the fact that it does not fully reflect what was shown on the plans. The council said that the turning area is suitable as it is wider than was originally provided for in the layout plans. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council's approach to considering a turning area when granting the planning permission was reasonable and correct. We also found that, with regards to enforcement action, this is a discretionary matter for the council. We concluded that the council had reasonably investigated and assessed Mr C's complaints about the suitability of the turning area. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

A solicitors firm complained on behalf of their client (Ms A) about the management of asbestos at a property she had rented from the council, and the time taken to provide her with a decant from the property.

Ms A's former property was constructed with asbestos containing materials. The council had surveyed these materials and considered that they were of low risk. Ms A was made aware of this when she moved in to the property. Approximately one year later, Ms A said the council's contractor undertook works at the property, and she was concerned that they damaged the flooring. Ms A said she reported this to the council. Approximately three years later, Ms A contacted the council to raise concerns about the flooring at the property and the council arranged an inspection. The council did not consider that the asbestos containing materials presented any risk. However, a decision was subsequently made to decant Ms A to another property. The council said that they offered one property, however, Ms A did not wish to move there. A number of months passed before Ms A was decanted to another property.

Regarding the management of asbestos at the property, we found that the council had conducted a survey that established this was low risk and in good condition. We found that the council followed their asbestos management plan. We found no evidence that the council's contractor carried out works inappropriately, and the council had no records of being contacted at that time. When Ms A raised concerns about the property approximately three years later, we found that the council organised an inspection, and relied on the professional expertise of their officer in concluding that there was no risk from the asbestos. We found this to be reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to the time taken to provide a decant, we noted the council's records indicated that one was initially offered, but Ms A did not wish to move. The council explained that there were limited properties available that were suitable. The property that Ms A was eventually moved to required works before it was ready. In these circumstances, we considered that there was no unreasonable delay by the council and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to take the appropriate action in response to her reports of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had investigated Ms C's complaints in line with their procedures. Whilst we noted that Ms C does not wish to continue living at her property, the council have not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour, therefore they cannot be required to take any enforcement action. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way that the council dealt with repairs relating to a leak in the roof of his council tenancy. He told us that there had been considerable delays to complete the roof works required and that this had led to extensive damage to the plaster in one of his bedrooms. He said that the council told him that he would be responsible for the works internally and so he began carrying out the necessary repairs, stripping the plaster from the walls. Whilst this work was in progress, he told us that a council officer attended his property and told him to stop the works immediately. The council then completed the works and recharged Mr C for the cost, which he felt was unreasonable.

We found that there had been a period of around six months from the date the repairs were first reported until the roof works were totally complete. However, the council initially carried out a minor repair within two days, which they believed had stopped the leak. We saw no evidence that Mr C had contacted the council to report that the leak persisted and they only became aware that further works were required three months after the initial repair, when visiting to investigate reports of unauthorised works. At this visit, they found that the plaster had been removed from two of the walls in the bedroom and the electrics had been damaged.

We found that the council then instructed a report, which identified that fairly major masonry works were required, necessitating extensive scaffolding. They accepted that there was some degree of delay in completing these works, but explained that this was due to poor weather and a high demand for roofing contractors. On balance, we did not consider that there was an unreasonable delay, given the extent of the works required. We also considered that they were entitled to recharge Mr C for the works required to the bedroom, as there was no evidence that he had contacted them to request these repairs before carrying them out himself, which he was required to do under the terms of his tenancy agreement. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Due to raised levels of carbon dioxide in her home, Mrs C was decanted to a new permanent home by the housing association. She complained to us that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy and that they failed to communicate with her in an appropriate manner throughout the process. In particular, Mrs C was unhappy because she did not feel that she was given enough money to buy or replace what she already had in her previous home. She said that she was told by the association that her new property would be finished to the same standard as her previous home, but that this had not been the case. Mrs C said she also received conflicting information from the association in relation to what they would pay for and what she would be expected to pay for. She described staff attitude and communication as being poor throughout.

The association told us that, at an early stage of the carbon dioxide incident arising, they identified that they did not have a policy on decant and home loss allowances which covered an incident the scale of that experienced by Mrs C. They took steps to put one in place and confirmed that they took guidance for the amounts to offer for home loss and furnishings from Shelter (a charity which offers advice and advocacy regarding poor housing) and other housing associations. The association also explained that a number of alterations were carried out in Mrs C's new home, all to her specification. In addition, Mrs C received the appropriate home loss payment and she also received additional payments for replacing her floor coverings and curtains. The amounts Mrs C received were in line with the allowances set out in the association's decant policy. As such, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns about the association's communication with her, we did not identify any evidence to suggest she was given conflicting information in relation to what the association would pay for and what she would be expected to pay for. The information available confirmed that payments were made to Mrs C in line with the allowances set by the policy. We also saw evidence that staff had taken reasonable steps to keep in contact with Mrs C throughout the process. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about the association's communication with her throughout the process.

Summary

Ms C complained about the housing association's response to her reports of damp in her property.

The association investigated and they found no evidence of damp. They said that the problems were caused by condensation and they gave advice about heating and ventilation. We were satisfied that the association had taken reasonable action to investigate the issues and that they had provided the appropriate advice. As such, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.