Local Government

Summary

Miss C complained on behalf of her local residents' organisation. Her complaint concerned various issues relating to the council's waste services, including the bin crew failing to empty bins on designated days, not cleaning or picking up overspill in bin stores, not reporting tipped items to relevant services, long delays in response times for faulty bin repairs, and the bin crew not returning bins to stores after emptying them.

The council acknowledged that there had been failings in their refuse collection services, and provided evidence to show that they were taking steps to improve matters. They have also appointed a Locality Waste and Cleansing Officer.

There had also been unreasonable delays in the council responding to requests for bin repair or replacement, and unreasonable delays in responding to Miss C's complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• report back to us, confirming the progress that has been made in respect of the measures set out by the Locality Waste and Cleansing Officer; and
• apologise to Miss C for the delays in responding to her requests for bin repair or replacement.

Summary

A mutual boundary wall between Ms C's property and another property was the subject of a statutory repair notice issued by the council. The notice required the wall to be demolished and re-built.

No action was taken until two years later, when the council notified Ms C and other owners that they had 14 days to indicate whether they were undertaking the work to the wall before the council would do so. Ms C said that despite informing the council that she and the other owners would do so, the council did not adhere to the timeline and instead instructed their own contractor to carry out the work. The council said they were unable to trace any record of contact from Ms C about this. Given the conflicting evidence and the period of time that had elapsed, we were unable to conclude what had occurred and to conclude definitively when the work began. We also considered it was the responsibility of Ms C and the other owners to have ensured that the council knew that she and the other owners intended carrying out the work to the wall. Therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

However, we considered that certain aspects of the council's administration of the notice in relation to the appointment of the contractor, how the share of the costs of the work had been apportioned and a delay in providing Ms C with a copy of the final account was unsatisfactory and had caused her to reasonably question the cost of the work charged to her. On balance we therefore upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint and recommended that the council apologise to her. However, we were unable to conclude that the final account for the work was incorrect.

In reaching our decision, we took into account that an independent resolution complaints panel review had concluded that the invoiced account was correct and that owners had only been invoiced for the amounts they were liable for.

Ms C also complained that she had not received a satisfactory response from the council to her enquiries and concerns in relation to the notice. We found that there was a lack of evidence about what occurred prior to a certain point. However, we considered the action taken by the council thereafter, taking account of the available evidence, to have been reasonable and so we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in the administration of the notice.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's response to her concerns about statutory notices issued at her property. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to follow the relevant procedures.

During our investigation we found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the correct procedures. We were satisfied that owners had been notified of the statutory notices and subsequently that, as owners had failed to carry out the required work, the council had authorised the organisation of the work. We were satisfied that evidence available demonstrated that owners had been kept updated on progress of the works. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Miss C also complained that the council had failed to handle her complaint reasonably. While we were satisfied that the council had responded to Miss C's representations, the council accepted that they had failed to deal with her complaint within the timescales detailed in their complaints process. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the delay in dealing with her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the delay in the council responding to his complaint and that they failed to take reasonable action to address his concerns about anti-social behaviour.

The council took 11 months to respond to Mr C's complaint, and although they had apologised for the delay, we considered this delay to be unreasonable. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

The council said in their response to our enquiry that the complaint had not been recorded as a complaint. The council had partially upheld the original complaint but not explained why. We therefore made a recommendation in this regard.

We considered that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about anti-social behaviour. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• explain to us the reason for their failure to record Mr C's complaint and to confirm what steps they have taken to ensure this does not happen again; and
• explain to us why the complaint was partially upheld.

Summary

Mrs C made an application for a High Hedge Notice under the High Hedges (Scotland) Act 2013 Act. The council notified Mrs C and her neighbours of consideration of the high hedge application. Approximately a month later, a site inspection was carried out. Based on the inspection, the council reached the view that the trees in question did not qualify as a high hedge, and the council refused the application on this basis.

Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably failed to process the concerns she had about planting in her neighbour's garden. She raised particular concerns about the stage in the process at which the council considered the question of whether the trees amounted to a high hedge.

We obtained independent planning advice in relation to Mrs C's complaint. We found that the council had reached a particular decision about the process for a high hedge application, based on their legal advice. However, we considered that having reached that decision, the council should have been clear about the process they were following to the complainant (who expected the council to follow the guidance), and moreover, appropriately escalated their concerns about the guidance to the Scottish Government. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• confirm they will raise their concerns about the guidance with the Scottish Government;
• confirm they will review their process for dealing with high hedge applications following engagement with the Scottish Government, including reviewing the handling and publication of the application, and the reimbursement of associated fees; and
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the planning consent for the erection of houses on a site close to his home. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to take action against the developer to ensure improvements to the state of the pathway constructed by the developer and to the area of pipework discharging into the burn. Mr C also raised concerns that the pathway had been constructed in a different location to that on the approved plans and was unlit. The location of the pathway and the requirement that it be lit was detailed in a condition attached to the planning consent.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the action taken to amend the location of the path and to decide that the path should not be lit was likely to be contrary to sections 42 and/or 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. We were also concerned that the council had failed to keep Mr C updated on progress at the site and that they had failed to address his concerns about the location of the path. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their handling of this matter, in particular the failure to address the issue about the location and lighting of the path; and
• in light of the adviser's comments about the likely breach of sections 42 and/or 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, seek to regularise the situation, ensure compliance with the Act and report back on action taken.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his complaint. He had initially contacted the council for information about the named person scheme for children and was unhappy with the response he received. He then wrote to the council to complain about this. He did not receive a response to this complaint and emailed the council again to complain that they had not followed their complaints handling procedure. The council sent him a response to his initial complaint on the same day. They said that this had been completed several weeks earlier, but had not been issued due to an administrative oversight. They also apologised for this.

Mr C then wrote to the council to complain about the response. He said that it appeared to him that the council had simply backdated a letter and then pretended it had not been sent due to an administrative oversight. In response to this, the council wrote to him and said that they had progressed his complaint to stage 2 of their complaints process. Mr C subsequently phoned the council and said that he wanted his complaint about the delay in responding to his original complaint to be dealt with as a new complaint. The council then wrote to Mr C stating that it was their view that the points raised would be best considered under stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure and as part of their consideration of the other issues he had raised.

We upheld Mr C's complaint due to the council's failure to send the original response to his complaint to him. We also found that the council should have been clearer to Mr C about how his subsequent complaints would be handled, although we found that it had been reasonable to deal with them under stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure. We were also satisfied that the council had apologised for these failings and had taken action to try to prevent similar problems from occurring.

Summary

Mr C complained regarding the council's handling of his reports of neighbour nuisance behaviour.

Mr C complained to the council about nuisance behaviour over a period of about a year. He said the council did not respond reasonably to his phone calls and emails, including to the council's helpline, and that they did not take reasonable action to address the behaviour. Mr C also said that the council did not respond reasonably to his complaint.

The council acknowledged that there were some issues with communication and complaints handling, and we therefore upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, they said they took reasonable action to address the nuisance behaviour.

Based on the information we received about the actions of the council and the circumstances of the case, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council did not take reasonable action to address the nuisance behaviour.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff; and
• provide an outline of the steps they will take to ensure messages via their helpline are handled better in the future.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application submitted by his neighbours. The council had granted planning permission, with an attached condition which stipulated that the recommendations in a tree report that had been produced for the neighbours were complied with. Some of the recommendations in the tree report related to trees that were on Mr C's property. As Mr C had refused his neighbours access to his trees, the planning condition could not be met. When Mr C's neighbours wrote to the council explaining this, the council stated that they considered the condition to have been fulfilled nevertheless.

We took independent planning advice. We found that it was unreasonable for the council to attach a planning condition that was unachievable to the planning application. We also found that rather than considering the condition to be fulfilled when they discovered it to be unachievable, the council should have asked the applicants to formally apply, under section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, for the condition to be varied or for the development to proceed without complying with the terms of the condition.

We noted that prior to our investigation the council had implemented new training and guidelines to reduce the possibility of a similar failing occurring again, and that they had accepted that the condition should not have been attached in the form that it was. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified by this investigation; and
• draw the comments of the adviser regarding section 42 of the Act to the attention of relevant staff.

Summary

Mrs C lived adjacent to a site on which unauthorised development had taken place. Mrs C was unhappy that the development had caused her property to flood and complained to the council that they had failed to take appropriate enforcement action to address the flooding.

We found that the council had served three enforcement notices on the developer in relation to the site, and that each of these had been appealed. We also noted that the developer had submitted a further planning application to the council, which meant that all enforcement action was on hold pending the outcome of this application.

In response to our enquiries, the council advised that they considered they had taken appropriate steps to take enforcement action against the developer. We took independent planning advice. The adviser considered that the council had taken reasonable steps in the first instance to ensure that the enforcement notices were served on the correct parties. However, the adviser was critical with the approach taken by the council in relation to the enforcement notices and did not consider that this approach would have been able to achieve the council's aim of preventing flooding to Mrs C's property.

While the adviser was critical of this aspect of the council's actions, we did not consider that this failing had altered the outcome of the case. This was because it was evident that the developer submitted a new planning application, which meant that all enforcement action would have been on hold anyway. However, we found that, in the event that the developer's latest application is refused, the council should reconsider enforcement action with the benefit of hindsight over the detail required in preparing the enforcement notices. We made a recommendation in relation to this and decided on balance to uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the adviser's comments to staff in the planning service.