Some upheld, recommendations

Summary
Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to install a temporary water connection that he had applied for on a building site. He had to obtain water for the development from another site. Business Stream have to refer applications for connections for building water to Scottish Water for the connection to be made. However, in this case Business Stream were the licensed provider and were responsible for handling the application.

We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. Although it was Scottish Water who failed to install the temporary connection, we found that that Business Stream had failed to adequately monitor Mr C's application or keep him updated. There was clearly a communication failure between Business Stream and Scottish Water. Business Stream were not aware that the connection had not been installed until Mr C contacted them about this several months later.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to respond appropriately to his request for a refund. If we decide that someone has suffered because of something an organisation has done wrong, we will ask that organisation to put the person in the position they would have been in had they been dealt with correctly in the first place. However, we would only do so where there is demonstrable loss or costs. Although Business Stream had not refunded all of the money that Mr C had paid, we were satisfied that they had taken steps to put him back in the position he would have been in had the failing not occurred. We considered that their response to Mr C's request for a refund had been reasonable.

Recommendation
We recommended that Business Stream:
• ensure that there is now an adequate process in place for monitoring the new connection applications that they are responsible for handling.

Summary
Mr C was cycling on a designated cycle-path in a public park when a dog ran into him. As a result, Mr C was thrown from his bicycle. Five months later, he reported the accident and asked the council to serve a warning notice on the owner of the dog. Some seven months after that, the council responded advising that their management rules for parks did not allow for notices to be served on dog owners.

Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response and the time they took to provide it and raised his complaints with us. On investigating, we decided that the council's position regarding the enforcement of management rules was reasonable but that they had taken an unreasonable time to respond to his enquiries. As the council had already apologised for the delay itself, however, we recommended only that they apologise further to Mr C.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for not providing him with an explanation for their delay in responding to his contact or outlining the steps they had taken to ensure the delay would not be repeated.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of two planning applications for the construction of a new house on a plot of land neighbouring his home.

Planning permission was initially granted for the build, despite the council's failure to notify neighbours of the development as required by planning regulations. Although the developer had the council's permission to build the new house, this was vulnerable to legal challenge due to this failure to notify neighbours.

To remedy this, the developer submitted a new planning application so that neighbour notification could be carried out. Planning permission was subsequently approved again.

Mr C felt that the original planning permission should have been revoked while the second application was being considered. He believed that the failure to do this meant that any objections submitted would be dismissed in favour of confirming the existing planning permission. Mr C submitted objections based on the impact the new development would have on his own property's privacy. He did not feel that his objections were taken into account when planning permission was granted for a second time.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council granted planning permission without neighbour notification. However, we did not find it necessary for the original planning permission to be revoked while the resubmitted planning application was being considered. The planning officer's report showed that due consideration was given to Mr C's objections with reference to local planning policy and we were, therefore, generally satisfied that the second planning application had been properly processed.

Mr C was told by the planning committee's vice convenor that he would be invited to attend a pre-determination hearing. This did not happen and he was subsequently told that planning permission had been granted without his attendance at such a meeting. On looking at this issue, we found that it was beyond the vice convenor's powers to make this promise to Mr C. However, there was no obligation on the council to hold a pre-determination hearing for this planning application or to invite Mr C to it. We recommended that the council remind elected members of the process for notification of and invitation to pre-determination hearings.

Mr C raised further concerns about the council's handling of his formal complaint. We found that the complaint was properly investigated but that there were delays to the council's responses.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• remind elected members of the process for notification of and invitation to pre-determination hearings.
 

Summary
Since 2007 Mr C has run a concrete business from a yard owned by his brother. In 2006 his brother objected to a planning application for four houses on a site adjoining the yard. The application was refused but was granted conditional consent on appeal and the housing development was begun. In 2008 Mr C placed a cement silo in the yard. The occupant of the house nearest to the yard told the council about this. The council inspected the site and asked Mr C to apply for planning consent, which he did. However, it was refused. The council then served an enforcement notice on Mr C telling him to remove the silo, but neglected to serve the notice on Mr C's brother.

Mr C appealed against the refusal of planning consent and the enforcement notice, but his appeals were dismissed. Mr C then instructed a planning consultant, who pointed out that the enforcement notice had not been served on Mr C's brother, and was successful in having the decision notice quashed in the Court of Session. A possibility remained that the council could re-serve the enforcement notice. However, after eighteen months of correspondence with Mr C's consultant on whether planning consent for the silo was actually needed, the council said that they did not consider that pursuit of enforcement action was in the public interest.

Mr C complained that the council handled the planning application for the houses inadequately and that it was inappropriate for them to have taken enforcement action. We did not uphold the complaint in respect of the residential application. We did, however, uphold the second complaint. While we did not find it inappropriate for the council to exercise their discretion, firstly to take enforcement action and then, more than two years later, to decide not to, we found that the processing of the application was flawed as the council did not follow a robust and correct process.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that the enforcement notice was properly served; and
• expedite any claim that Mr C decides to submit in the light of this decision.

Summary
The council carried out a survey of a sample of tower block residents about the service provided on estates. It asked for views on services, security and amenity issues.
About a couple of years later, they told residents that they had decided to make changes to improve service and security. This included removing existing residential caretakers and installing a CCTV (camera) monitoring system linked to a control room.

Mrs C and Mrs B complained on behalf of a number of tower block residents, who had signed a petition against the change. They complained that the council failed to consult with all residents before making changes to residential caretaking services and that residents were denied an opportunity to take part in the survey on which the decision was made. Mrs C and Mrs B said that the council had not addressed their complaint fully and properly and that there was a delay in responding. They wanted the council to undertake a further survey with all residents.

We upheld two of the complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond fully to Mrs C and Mrs B's request for details of the criteria used for the survey and the breakdown of the results. There was also a delay in responding to the complaint. We did not, however, uphold complaints that the survey was not properly carried out; that the majority agreement of residents should have been obtained; or that the council failed to address the residents' request for information about the survey and the cost involved, and for a review of the decision.

When we told the chief executive of the council of the decision, we also pointed out that the council had failed to provide us with all the information we asked for; and we sought assurances that there would not be a recurrence of this in future.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• write to Mrs C and Mrs B with a full response to the outstanding issues from their letter of complaint and offer them an apology for their failure to do so when responding to their complaint; and
• review the handling of this complaint to ensure that the council's complaints procedure is being effectively managed.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council did not act in response to his concerns about dog faeces in his neighbour's garden and flooding caused by concrete slabs that his neighbour had laid in both front and rear gardens. There was no natural drainage and when it rained, water ran off the slabs, flooding Mr C's garden. As his neighbour did not clean up their dogs' faeces, this caused a foul smell and when it rained the faeces were also washed into Mr C's garden. Mr C also said that piles of rubble were pushed up against his fence from his neighbour's side.

We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. We found that the council investigated the issues he had raised and confirmed that there was a problem with the slabs and dog faeces. As the next-door property was scheduled to be extended, plans were put in place to re-lay the slabs and introduce drainage while the tenants were decanted. Although this caused some delay to the matter being addressed, and the nature of the work to be carried out changed periodically, we felt that this was a reasonable solution to the flooding problem. However, the council failed to clarify whether they had taken steps to remove the rubble. We recommended that they ensure that this issue had been addressed.

The council's neighbourhoods team leader had also advised staff to monitor the situation weekly. If any faeces were witnessed, the council would clear this and charge the tenants for the work. We found that weekly monitoring took place, but that when faeces were found staff simply asked the tenant to clean these up. The council did not take the specific action proposed by the neighbourhoods team leader, which may have resulted in prolonged monitoring and the situation being allowed to become drawn out. We also found that there was initially a significant delay in action being taken to address the issue of dog faeces.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for the delay in dealing with the dog faeces issue;
• consider reviewing their approach to monitoring and acting upon complaints of dog fouling at their properties; and
• ensure that the issue of the chips and rubble reputedly piled against Mr C’s fence has been addressed.

Summary
Mr C complained that as a result of building works to construct a new bus station, a temporary one-way system was introduced.

Mr C lives in a road which was made into a one-way road as part of these works. A temporary traffic regulation order required all traffic to travel west and introduced double-yellow lines along parts of the south side of the road. Mr C said that, before the introduction of the temporary one-way system, parking was controlled by double-yellow lines along the north side of the road. On the south side, there were marked parking bays and, at the entrances to residents' driveways, white 'H-bars' were marked out. These were extended to prevent parking opposite driveways on the northern side of the road, if there was no driveway immediately opposite.

When the building works finished, two-way traffic was reinstated. The temporary double-yellow lines on the south side of the road were removed along with the marked parking bays that had been there previously. Mr C complained that the parking restrictions on the road were not the same as had been in place previously and that road safety had been compromised as a result. He raised his concerns with the council and presented them with a petition from other residents who were dissatisfied with the revised road layout.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council unreasonably failed to reinstate the original parking spaces and double-yellow lines. This was because the council have discretion as to what road markings are used as long as these are in line with existing traffic regulation orders and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (the regulations). Whilst the parking bays had not been reinstated and the H-bars may not be the same as they were previously, we were satisfied the council have shown that their decisions were made with reference to pre-2006 plans and the regulations. As such, we found no evidence of maladministration in their reinstatement of the two-way traffic layout on the road.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council unreasonably failed to take the wishes of residents into account. The correspondence showed that Mr C's complaint to the council changed after his initial letter of complaint (which was a personal concern about difficulty in exiting his driveway). The council responded to these concerns. However, when Mr C contacted them again on behalf of the residents, the evidence we saw indicates that the council continued to take the view that his concerns about the driveway were the main reason for his complaint rather than the residents' concerns about road safety.

We found no evidence to show that these group concerns were fully taken into account. Although the council had looked into safety issues, no formal records were kept of their investigation into the residents' concerns. We, therefore, recommended that the council consider carrying out a road safety audit.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council failed to deal with his complaint appropriately. While we were generally satisfied with the promptness of the council's responses and their explanations of their position about the markings on the road, we found that their responses did not adequately acknowledge the specific points that Mr C had raised and the reasons for his complaints.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider carrying out a road safety audit.

Summary
Mr C complained about how the council handled a request for an amendment to planning consent for a house to be built on part of a neighbour's garden ground. Mr C complained that the council had failed to assess the request properly and that the conditions attached to the planning consent could not be achieved. He was also unhappy with the council's handling of his representations and his complaint.

The decision on whether or not to accept an application for this kind of non-material variation is a discretionary one for the council to take. We are not an appeal body for the decisions of organisations. We can check a decision is properly made and will look at the process and procedures involved. If we find that something's gone wrong, we can make recommendations to put things right. In this case, our investigation found no evidence that the council failed to correctly exercise their discretion.

We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaints about poor complaints handling. Before we became involved the council had accepted that there were failings in how they handled Mr C's complaint. Our investigation also found that the council had failed to respond to specific questions raised by Mr C in his correspondence.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for failing to respond fully to Mr C's questions.

Summary
Mr C is a member of the board of a charitable trust. He complained on their behalf that senior officers of the council acted to the detriment of the trust. In particular he alleged that the council's chief executive misrepresented information to the council and that the director of finance delayed in his dealings with the trust. Mr C told us that, as a consequence, the trust failed to receive monies they said they had been guaranteed.

The investigation showed that the chief executive had complied appropriately with the directions of an appeal panel that had reviewed the circumstances of Mr C's complaint. We found, however, that the director of finance delayed in responding to some correspondence for around six months. This was too long, and we upheld this element of the complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that:
• the director of finance should provide a formal, written apology to the trust acknowledging his failure to respond in a timely manner to their correspondence; and
• the council emphasise to all their staff the importance of responding timeously to members of the public who have taken the trouble to write to them.

Summary
Mr C complained to the council about a business premises next door to his property. The council gave planning consent for alterations to a workshop within the premises, including a condition that placed restrictions on the operating hours of the business. Mr C said that his family life had since been unreasonably disrupted by activities at the premises and was unhappy that the council failed to enforce the condition. The council explained that the condition was attached in error as, given the nature of the permission sought in the original planning application, operating hours should not have been considered. We, therefore, upheld Mr C's complaint that the council gave consent that included an unenforceable condition, as we found the planning officer dealing with the application should not have included the condition. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that it was inappropriate for the council not to take enforcement action in relation to the condition, as we found it would have been disproportionate and not in fact lawful for them to do so.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to take any action against the owners. He said that the owners had misled the council and the public, as the application did not say that they intended to sub-let the premises to another business. We found, however, that the owners were not required to include this information in their application. Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to protect the amenity of neighbours to the site. Although we did not uphold this complaint, we recommended that the council now review the position at the premises.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• arrange for environmental health officers to conduct a further site visit at the premises; and
• undertake an assessment of the activities conducted at the premises to ascertain whether or not an intensification of use has occurred.

When it was originally published on 27 March 2013, this case was wrongly categorised as ‘not upheld’. The correct category is ‘some upheld’