Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that after they accepted a house requiring modifications in respect of Mrs C's disabilities, the council failed to complete the work in a timely manner. They also complained that the council failed to provide them with suitable alternative accommodation for the duration of the works.

Our investigation found that Mr and Mrs C accepted the property in the knowledge that works were necessary to make it suitable. While Mr and Mrs C maintained that the work was to be done before they took entry, we found nothing to confirm this. We noted that architect's plans were required to be drawn up and surveys (including a survey for the presence of asbestos) were needed before works could be specified for tender. This would all take time and Mr and Mrs C were encouraged to apply for housing benefit to allow them to remain in their original home until the work was done. Mr and Mrs C did not wish to do this, and so moved into the new accommodation. Once work was due to go ahead, Mr and Mrs C refused entry to the workers on the grounds that they needed alternative accommodation. We found that while the works did not require the council to provide alternative accommodation, they did offer Mr and Mrs C the use of facilities in a nearby sheltered housing complex. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure his bins were collected. We contacted the council, who did not respond to our enquiries in full. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that he receives a reasonable bin collection service;
• produce a detailed strategy to ensure that Mr C's bins are sufficient in number, are collected regularly in line with the council's obligations and are monitored for a three-month period to ensure collection; and
• provide this office with a copy of the strategy mentioned above.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's assessment of his mother (Mrs A)'s residential care charges. Mr C did not have power of attorney for Mrs A, and he had not progressed his concerns to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). We looked at the council's handling of the complaint because of the difficulties Mr C was having in progressing his complaint and because the council did not give him a timely response after they received permission from Mrs A's attorney. The council sent a detailed response to Mr C and offered to convene a CRC.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about parking tickets that he had received from the council. Mr C had appealed some of the charges but the council had rejected his appeal. He then appealed the charges to the independent body that deals with appeals but at that stage, the council decided not to contest his appeal.

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to action his report of faulty ticket machines. We found that the council had delayed in correcting the signs on the machines about the coins they would accept and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. He also complained about the council's handling of the appeals. We found that although Mr C had been inconvenienced by the fact that he had to submit a second appeal to the independent body, the decisions taken on the appeals by the council were decisions they were entitled to take and there was no evidence of procedural failings. Mr C also complained that the council had not told him why they had decided not to contest his appeal. However, this was also a decision they were entitled to take. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to issues he had raised about the legal position of the parking spaces. We found that the council's response to him on this matter had been reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not followed their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints. We found that there had been delays in dealing with Mr C's complaint. The council had only recorded the matter as a complaint after this office became involved. We also found that the council had not adequately responded to all of the issues he raised. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the delay in correcting the signage and the failures in relation to the handling of his complaint;
• provide evidence to confirm that in future, where required, the signage on parking meter machines will be updated promptly; and
• confirm that the staff involved in handling Mr C's complaints have been made aware of our decisions.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for a development near his home.

We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond to an enquiry from him about the height of the building. We also found that the council had failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on his property and that the planning report contained inaccurate information about overlooking of his property, which misled the planning committee. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained to us about the action the council had taken to mitigate the impact of the development on his property. The council had asked the developer to plant trees along the boundary of the properties to provide additional privacy and screening. We found that the steps taken by the council in relation to the matter had not been satisfactory. Whilst the council had accepted that the problem had arisen because of their failings, they had tried to resolve the matter through negotiation with the developer. We found that it was the council's responsibility to try to resolve the matter. We considered that they should be prepared to fund the cost of this and use any measures available to them as the planning authority, in the event that negotiation fell short of what was required. We upheld this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond to his correspondence about the matter appropriately. We found that the council should have registered his correspondence as a complaint at an earlier stage and had failed to keep him updated. They also failed to respond to him within the timescales they had given and did not respond reasonably to some of the issues he had raised. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide this office with evidence that there are now processes and procedures in place, such as a guidance note on writing planning reports, to prevent the failings identified from recurring;
• take steps to ensure that there is effective screening between the two properties. This should include meeting the costs of the screening if necessary. In the event that the council is unable to secure this with the co-operation of other parties, they should consider the full use of the statutory interventions available;
• provide this office with evidence that steps have been taken to try to ensure that correspondence and complaints about planning issues are responded to appropriately and in line with the relevant guidance; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she was charged when she failed to respond to contact from the council regarding a gas safety visit.

The council said they had sent her two letters, the engineers had called on her twice and left postcards asking her to contact them and they had heard nothing from her. They then hand-delivered a letter telling Mrs C she would be charged for having not previously responded to them and would face a larger charge if she continued to fail to contact them as the council would force entry to her home to carry out the safety checks.

At this point, Mrs C contacted the council and said she had not received any of the previous communications. We found that the council's policy is to call the tenant after the first two attempted visits. There was no evidence to suggest this had been done. As the council could not demonstrate they had followed their procedure, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• cancel the outstanding bill; and
• review the procedure related to how contact is recorded.