Local Government

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to assess their housing application in accordance with their policies and procedures. C and their partner had two children and shared their bedroom with the youngest child. C submitted a request for rehousing. The council awarded C a priority band 2 (with 1 being the highest and 4 the lowest). C then submitted medical information regarding their mental health to support their application for rehousing. However, the council advised C that they did not meet the criteria for a band 1 priority and that their current award of band 2 was correct and in line with the allocation policy.

C submitted an appeal, along with a further supporting letter from their mental health nurse. The council responded stating C’s current band 2 status was deemed appropriate and in line with the established policy guidelines.

We found that the council’s position was not in line with the allocation policy. We were concerned by the council’s statement that band 2 was correct, that there would be no band 1 award on the basis of mental health and that they had been applying this reasoning consistently. Their policy states that Band 1 is awarded to those applicants whose home is causing significant problems due to a physical, medical, or mental health problem or disability. We also found that C did not receive timely responses from the council. Their responses were delayed and C had to chase several times for a response. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of the complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Housing applications should be assessed in line with the Allocation Policy.
• The council should ensure that correspondence is responded to within a reasonable amount of time and in line with published service standards.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the council’s decsion to build a prison facility next to their and others’ property. C’s complaint covers the council’s planning and environmental health services.

Regarding the planning process, C considered the council had failed to safeguard neighbouring residents when granting planning permission. C said the council did not consider the proximity of the houses to the prison and the soil type present on the site. They also felt that a Noise Impact Assessment should be carried out. C said this resulted in damage to property, issues with noise and vibration, and the loss of house value.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council had carried out their planning obligations, in line with relevant legislation, guidance and policies. We recognised that C disagreed with the council’s position but concluded that the council handled the planning applications reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

In respect of the environmental health service, C said that the council failed to safeguard them during the construction of the new facility. They explained that they experienced noise and vibration issues. C said these vibrations caused visible damage to their property.

We found that the council’s environmental health service acted reasonably in response to concerns raised by C. It was for the council to decide whether the threshold was met for noise and vibration from the construction site to be considered a statutory nuisance. We were satisfied that the council had provided reasonable explanations for why this threshold was not met. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

Summary

A & B complained to the council about their handling of their claims procedure in relation to the Trams to Newhaven project. A and B were unhappy with the council’s response because they considered that the council failed to appropriately address and investigate their complaint and that relevant issues were not given due consideration.

A and B complained to the SPSO. After an initial review, we considered that the council had failed to engage with A and B to specify their complaint. We also considered that the council had opted to summarise what they regarded as the issues of complaint without obtaining A and B’s agreement to this. As the council had not fully addressed or clearly responded to all of A and B’s concerns, we directed that they should provide an additional response. The council provided A and B with an additional response and apologised to them for failing to adequately address their complaint.

A and B then complained to our office that the council failed to investigate their complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure (CHP). During our investigation the council acknowledged that A and B’s complaint was not fully responded to and was not handled in accordance with their CHP. We also considered that the council failed to act in line with their CHP when initially investigating and responding to A and B’s complaint. We upheld the complaint.

The council informed us of the learning that they identified from A and B’s complaint and their wider experience of the Trams to Newhaven project. We considered this to be an example of good practice.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A and B for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be investigated and responded to in accordance with the council’s complaints handling procedure. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the handling of two planning enforcement complaints which they had brought to the council in regards to Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) installed at two neighbouring properties, which were affecting their enjoyment of their property due to the noise generated. C complained that the council had taken too long to determine that planning applications were required and that the council’s communication had been inconsistent and slow. C also complained that the time to determine the retrospective planning applications was too long.

The council admitted that their initial handling of the enforcement complaints was inconsistent and slow. They apologised, restructured the team and provided reminders as to when planning was required for ASHPs. As regards the determination of the planning applications, they advised that they were waiting for Noise Impact Assessments (NIAs) from the applicants which were never provided.

The applications were due to be determined by the Planning Committee in June 2024. However, just prior to this C commissioned their own NIA which needed to be robustly considered by Environmental Health Services. The applications were considered in February 2025.

We found that given the ASHPs were potentially impacting C’s amenity, due to noise, it took the council too long to investigate the planning enforcement complaints and to decide that planning applications were required. It also took them too long to determine the planning applications. We upheld the complaint on this basis.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the time taken to determine the planning applications in respect of the neighbours ASHPs. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should provide clear advice on the situations where express planning consent is required for ASHPs, and what information is required to support such applications.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about their experience at the primary school of their child (A) who has additional support needs. C requested independent mediation with the school and a Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP) for A. C complained that the council failed to reasonably handle these requests, and that they did not reasonably apply their Unacceptable Actions policy in C’s case.

The council said that an internal mediation process had been put in place and a member of staff was mediating with C on behalf of Education Services. The council said that this went well, so there was no requirement to involve an independent mediator. We found that C was not reasonably informed about the start of the internal mediation process.

The council acknowledged that there was a slight delay in handling C’s request for a CSP. We found that the council failed to meet the eight-week timescale for responding to requests for CSPs, as set out in the council’s policy and statutory guidance. We also found that the council did not reasonably inform C that they had the right to make a reference to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal

The council said that the Unacceptable Actions policy has been applied correctly. We found that the council failed to provide C with a warning letter prior to restricting C’s contact, and that there was a delay in the council’s response to C’s appeal of the decision to apply the Unacceptable Actions policy. Additionally, we found that the council should have referred to relevant policies and guidance in investigating C’s complaints about their request for a CSP and the application of the Unacceptable Actions policy. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Requests for establishing whether or not children or young people require a CSP should be responded to within the eight-week timescale set out in the council policy and statutory guidance. The council should inform persons making a request of their legal right to make a reference to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal if the eight-week period has elapsed and no decision has been made.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• When investigating a complaint, staff should consider what information they need about what should have happened, including any relevant policies or procedures that apply.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to the council that they had unlawfully carried out repairs to the communal roof and chimney of a block of properties in which C owned a flat by not seeking permission first. C said they had not received a letter which the council said that they had posted advising of the intended works. C also questioned the council's decision to categorise the repair works as an emergency. C said that the council should have notified other owners when water penetrated the council owned property originally , and before the repair work was carried out.

The council said The Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 allowed for initial emergency repairs to be completed without the need to consult with other owners. As the contractor subsequently recommended a full roof replacement and chimney removal, the council gave the other owners the opportunity to obtain their own quotes for the work required. As no response was received from C to the letter advising them of the intended works, the work was completed and C was liable for their share of the costs.

We found that it was reasonable for the council to categorise water ingress as emergency work and carry out temporary repairs. However, it was less reasonable to continue to categorise the repairs as emergency work after this, noting that the council did not request a survey until the following year. Having made a temporary repair, the council could have used the time available to consult the other owners to obtain a properly made scheme decision in accordance with the legislation. We also found that there was unreasonable delay in advising the other owners about the extent of the works which were required, and the associated cost. We thereby upheld the complaint

We provided feedback on complaints handling, noting that the council may wish to consider reminding relevant staff about the importance of keeping complainants informed about any delay with the consideration of their complaint, and also about the council’s normal practice of placing invoices on hold until an investigation into a complaint has been completed.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should have clear procedures in place for when repairs are required to council owned properties in communal buildings, when there is no factor and responsibility for repairs and costs are shared between multiple homeowners. These procedures should be followed to ensure decisions are properly reached.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the council’s handling of communal repairs at a tenement in which C owned a property. Extensive work was required following a fire. The council owned the majority of properties in the building and took the lead in arranging and managing the work. During the work to repair the fire damage, extensive dry rot was identified. Work was completed around four years after the fire.

The invoice C received from the council for the dry rot works was approximately £15,000 over what C had expected to pay, based on the estimates for work given two years prior. C complained about the council’s management of the repairs, including their communication.

We found that the council’s communication with C during the period of works and in respect of the increasing costs was unreasonable. The council also failed to follow their own processes or act in line with their obligations under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. The final invoicing included substantial costs for which C was not liable, and which should not have been included in the invoice. The council also failed to notify C of the costs of an emergency repair to the roof following a storm within a reasonable period of time, resulting in C missing the opportunity to submit an insurance claim for the costs.

Overall, we found that the council’s management of communal repairs was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint. We considered that regardless of communication issues and delays, the costs would likely have been incurred and therefore are duly payable by C. However, given the multiple failings in relation to communication and administration, we recommended that the council refund the administration fee to C.

C also complained about the council's handling of their complaint. We found that the council’s complaint handling was unreasonable. The council failed to identify C’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint, failed to respond within a reasonable timescale or provide timely updates, misinterpreted C’s complaints, and made contradictory statements in the complaint response. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to reasonably manage the communal repairs and the failure to reasonably handle C's complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .
• Clarify whether the scaffold and site establishment costs were charged to C, and consider whether these funds should be reimbursed.
• The council should make a financial payment to C of £2,278, the equivalent of the 7% administration fee charged by the council for these works, in recognition of the poor standard of administration and failure to act in line with their responsibilities under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 when arranging for these repairs to be carried out.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should manage repairs carried out under the terms of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 in line with their obligations. When managing repairs, the council should ensure tenants and homeowners are updated of the progress of the project regularly, particularly where the scope of the works and the costs escalate.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint handling should be in line with the Model Complaint Handling Procedures. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at  HYPERLINK "https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses" https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses .

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to keep their child (A) safe whilst in the council’s care and that A had been inappropriately placed in secure accommodation. A had been in care in a number of different settings, including secure units. Some were run by third party care providers or the NHS. It was accepted by the council that A had been able to harm themselves whilst in care and that A had been placed in secure accommodation when the council was not legally entitled to do so. The council said that some incidents had occurred despite the best efforts of staff to keep A safe.

We took independent advice from a registered social worker. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to try and ensure A’s safety, and had worked with third parties to ensure incidents were fully reviewed. They had also taken reasonable steps to prevent a reoccurrence of the error that led to A being accommodated. We did not find communication with C had been unreasonable given C’s restrictions on the kind of communication that they would accept from the council. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Summary

C and their autistic child took up their tenancy, having been offered the property following assessment for priority for allocation.

C reported anti-social behaviour that they were experiencing from neighbours to the council. The behaviour ranged from communal areas being untidy and vandalised, to evidence of drug taking, loud noise and aggressive behaviour from neighbours and others entering the block.

C was dissatisfied with the action that the council took in response to numerous reports of anti-social behaviour, and they were very concerned about the impact that this was having on their child. C was also dissatisfied with the council’s handling of their application to be allocated another tenancy in a different area, and their refusal to consider sheltered housing given their child's needs.

The council responded to C’s concerns explaining that they had responded appropriately to reports of anti-social behaviour and did not uphold C's complaint. The council also explained that they considered that C’s initial allocation of housing was appropriate and in accordance with policy.

We found that the council could not evidence that they consistently responded to C’s concerns of anti-social behaviour inline with their policy and upheld this complaint on this basis. With respect to the complaints on the assessment of C’s housing application, we found that this had been assessed in accordance with policy and did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failures identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Relevant council staff should be aware of the relevant policies including Antisocial Behaviour Neighbour Complaints Policy and Procedures , with respect to logging, investigating and responding to complaints of anti-social behaviour by tenants.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to address excessive noise from a recreational area near their home. We found that the council had taken appropriate action in relation to C’s complaints of noise nuisance and did not uphold C’s complaint. However, we did provide the council with feedback on ensuring they carry out visits within a reasonable timeframe where they have agreed to do so, or contact the customer to explain why they are unable to do so.

C also complained about the council’s handling of their complaint. C raised a complaint with the council about the high levels of noise from the recreational area. The council responded on the same day saying that they could not consider noise nuisance under their complaints procedure as the nuisance was not being caused by the council or by any maladministration on behalf of the council. C was advised to engage with the appropriate council service regarding monitoring and establishing the noise nuisance and was signposted to the SPSO if C felt they were not responding to what they considered to be complaints.

We found that the council unreasonably failed to act in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure by refusing to further respond to C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of this complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint investigations should be carried out in line with the Local Authority Model Complaints Handling Procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.