Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his former wife (Mrs B) and his son (Mr B) about a letter Mr B's head teacher sent to Mrs B, in relation to alleged disciplinary issues in the school. Mr C also complained about the council's investigation of and response to Mrs B's complaint.

We found that the head teacher's letter included very emotive language, rather than factual information about specific incidents. Such factual information could have helped to engage Mrs B with the school's concerns in light of the facts.

We also identified a number of failings with the council's investigation and response to Mrs B, and noted that the council failed to send us all relevant information in response to our enquiry. The council's investigating officer made a recommendation following their investigation but the council was not able to provide information on the investigating officer's meetings or findings, therefore we concluded that notes were either not taken or not retained. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C, Mrs B and Mr B for the inappropriate language included in the head teacher's letter;
• send a copy to this office of the policy they developed in response to the investigating officer's recommendation;
• ensure that investigating officers make and keep records of interviews and advice received as part of the complaint file; and
• remind investigating officers of the need to comply with the complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr and Mr C said the council had not taken the risk of flooding into account in dealing with a retrospective planning application. The application had been submitted by a neighbour for change of land use on the site of a business.

Mrs and Mrs C said the site had been steadily developed over a number of years without consent. They said that changes had been made to the land which increased the risk of flooding.

We found the council had reasonably explained their decision. Their view was that there was no change in development terms that they considered would affect or increase the risk of flooding.

We took into account that Mr and Mrs C could have raised objections to the application but did not do so. However, whilst planning officers reached their view based on a number of valid considerations, including advice previously given in respect of flooding, their report of handling (a document which explored the merits of the development in accordance with various planning policies) did not contain the kind of detail we would have expected.

We found the council had not responded reasonably to Mr and Mrs C's complaint about buildings erected without consent. Although the council had carried out a site visit, they omitted to tell Mr and Mrs C what they found, and that they considered the buildings permitted the development. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to fully address Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's handling of asset transfers to two local charities, as she did not believe that the council had completed appropriate Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)s as required under the Equality Act 2010. She believed that they had only completed one EIA, which failed to consider all of the protected groups defined in the Act.

On investigation, we found that the council had completed EIAs for both asset transfers. On the first of these assessments, one area of the form used had only been partially completed, giving the initial impression that only some protected groups had been assessed. However, after reviewing their records in full, we were satisfied, on balance, that the council had considered all of the areas required. As such, we shared this minor error with the council but did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C said the council did not made reasonable arrangements to keep him informed about the education of his children. Mr C was living apart from his children in another part of the UK. We found the council strategy was supportive of parental involvement. We found the school had made reasonable arrangements to keep Mr C informed, and arranged consultations around his needs when he could not attend the usual parent consultations held twice a year.

We found evidence that the arrangements did not always work perfectly. For example, there was a delay in getting the school newsletter to Mr C when an email bounced back. There was also disagreement over three emails Mr C said were sent, which the council said the school did not receive. Whilst there were some problems with communication, we found no evidence this was the result of fault or failure on the part of the school.

We found the council's response contained an inaccuracy as it referred to a request for a meeting which had not been made. We noted that any inaccuracy in responding to complaints was unhelpful and that responses to complaints should always reflect the facts according to the evidence. However, we were satisfied that Mr C received a prompt and reasonable response to his complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C raised a number of issues regarding the handling by the council of their complaint relating to their child's school. During our investigation, we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had investigated the various issues raised by Mr and Mrs C in line with appropriate procedures and taken reasonable action based on this. We therefore did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to reasonably administer three statutory notices (where the council arrange for work to be done and then recoup the cost from the property owners) that had been served on his and neighbouring properties. The evidence we received from the council in relation to the complaint was limited. There was no clear evidence in relation to the appointment of the contractor for the work. Although the estimated costs during the project rose to bring it within the remit of the council's major framework process, it continued on the minor framework. The council were unable to provide an explanation for this but assured us that Mr C was not financially disadvantaged.

In addition, there was no clear evidence that Mr C was given an estimate of the cost of the project before work commenced or that update letters were issued whilst the work was being completed. Whilst the council told us that they could not accept that they failed to reasonably administer the three statutory notices as they complied with the legislative requirements, we found that their handling of the matter had not been satisfactory. They had previously agreed to reduce the total bill for the statutory notices by over £17,000 for scaffolding hire, which was likely to have been incurred due to their poor management of the works. In their response to our enquiries, the council also acknowledged that owners were not kept informed of the anticipated increases in costs during the project. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to reasonably administer the statutory notices served on his property; and
• refund the customer care and communication portion of the administration fee to him.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's handling of an application made by a neighbour for consent to carry out works to trees on Ms C's property which were subject to a tree preservation order (TPO). In particular, Ms C complained that the council failed to carry out a proper assessment of the trees, failed to ensure the trees in question were identified in the permission given by the council and failed to ensure the application for consent met the requirements of the TPO.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. While we were satisfied that in considering the request for permission to carry out work to trees on Ms C's property that were overhanging the neighbouring property the council acted in line with legislation, we were concerned about the adequacy of record-keeping and the lack of a publicly available register of applications submitted.

We were also concerned that the council had failed to refer to the works approved in the decision to the application and that they had failed to ensure the applicant had provided a plan or map sufficient to identify the trees on which permission to work was being sought. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide this office with details of the action taken to introduce a formal register in line with planning regulations;
• apologise to Ms C for the lack of detail contained within their decision in this case; and
• advise this office in respect of the adviser's comments on the need for a plan/map sufficient to identify the trees on which permission is being sought to accompany an application for consent under TPOs.

Summary

Mr C and his representative sought pre-application advice from the council before submitting a planning application for a property he wished to build. On the basis of the advice, Mr C submitted a planning application. Mr C complained about the council's handling of pre-application contact and the decision not to refer the application to a committee for approval.

We reviewed the information received from Mr C, his representative for the application and the council, as well as the council's Pre-Application Advice Guidance Note and their Scheme of Delegation. We found that the council had not kept a record of consultations with Mr C's representative, including a site meeting. We upheld Mr C's complaint that they had failed to keep proper records of additional relevant advice given.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to provide consistent advice at the pre-application and application stage, contrary to their guidance. We considered that the council had given a reasonable explanation for the meaning of the word 'qualified' within the guidance, explaining that the advice was not absolute. We did not consider that any recommendations were required as the council had already apologised to Mr C and taken action to remind staff of the importance of recording pre-application enquiries and responses and ensuring that this includes a standard disclaimer.

Regarding Mr C's complaint that the council failed to follow their Scheme of Delegation, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for their decision and therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his constituent (Mrs A) about planning applications at a site neighbouring her property. In particular, Mrs A was concerned that the council had failed to take enforcement action when planning conditions were not met in relation to engineering works and that the council had failed to issue a stop notice requiring activity on the planning site to stop when work began before planning permission had been granted. Mrs A also complained that the council had failed to take reasonable account of her concerns about the development.

We took independent planning advice and found no evidence that when the alleged breach of planning control was brought to the council's attention, they failed to investigate the matter in line with the Scottish Government's planning enforcement charter or the council's planning enforcement charter.

We also found no evidence of fault by the council when arriving at the decision not to issue a stop notice. We were satisfied that the council, in considering the application for the erection of houses on the neighbouring site, properly took into account the relevant guidance and planning policies. We found no evidence of procedural omissions by the council in the handling of the planning application. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the school's response to her concerns about how another pupil was treating her daughter, and that the council failed to investigate and respond to her complaint.

We found the school had taken reasonable action when concerns were reported to them. Though there appeared to continue to be problems, the school could only act on the information provided to them. We also found that the council's investigations were reasonable. We did not uphold the complaints.