Local Government

Summary

Ms C's neighbour applied for planning permission to build a porch extension which Ms C considered blocked her light. She complained to the council after permission was granted and was told that the plans had passed the daylight test. Ms C complained that the plans to which the daylight test was applied were inaccurate. The council responses indicated that they had tested the plans for accuracy but despite repeated requests for the information, the council could not offer proof of this test. Ms C continued to complain after she had had a final decision and the council reinvestigated her concerns concluding in a second final response. Ms C was unhappy that the plans were inaccurate, the council failed to provide her with proof of their test of accuracy and issued her with numerous responses after a supposedly final response.

We concluded that the council were reasonably entitled to assume the plans were accurate but should have provided Ms C with the information about this (or any test used to check accuracy of plans) and should not have continued to consider Ms C's complaint after issuing a final decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Ms C with either the mathematical method used to check the accuracy of the plans or an explanation as to why they were satisfied that the plans were accurate;
• apologise to Ms C for not providing the information or an explanation despite repeated requests; and
• take steps to ensure that planning department staff discuss the outcome of this complaint at a team meeting to raise awareness of the correct process for dealing with repeat complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to adequately address the concerns she had raised with them regarding water penetration at the home of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs C also felt that the council had acted unreasonably in their response to her complaints.

The council did not accept that they had failed to adequately address the water penetration, but did concede in the course of this investigation that they should have recognised Mrs C's initial complaint as such, instead of dealing with it as a request for service.

We agreed with the council that their response to the water penetration concerns at Mrs A's home had been reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. We did, however, uphold Mrs C's complaint about the council not responding reasonably to her complaint to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to deal with her correspondence as a complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application at a business park where he owns property. Mr C was concerned that the neighbour notification process had not been correctly followed as he had not received any information on the proposed development. He also complained that the council did not have sufficient information about the nature of the business that was to operate from the new development before approving the application, and that his subsequent reports of noise and pollution had not been acted on appropriately.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser and upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that while Mr C's property was not within the neighbour notification area, the council had already acknowledged that the process had not been correctly followed as the description of the development provided in the notification and local press advertisements was inaccurate. The council accepted that updating the description amounted to a substantial change which should have been re-notified and re-advertised. The advice that we received was that a change of this type should have necessitated a new planning application. The council explained that they had reviewed their planning processes and steps were in now in place to prevent a recurrence of errors like this in future.

In relation to the information available to the council in reaching a decision on the planning application, the advice we received was that not all material considerations had been taken into account. The adviser considered there was no evidence that pollution and contamination had been considered. The adviser explained that any decision on whether the planning consent was valid would be a matter for the courts if a legal challenge was made.

We noted that Mr C had continued to report difficulties in respect of pollution. We found that following initial reports, there had been a failure to promptly advise Mr C of the outcome of environmental investigations and that planning action on this issue had been somewhat delayed. We made a number of recommendations to address the issues highlighted by this investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence of all the steps taken, including training, to prevent such errors recurring in future;
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation;
• make the relevant staff aware of the adviser's comments and guidance on material considerations;
• establish whether noise and pollution continues to be a concern for Mr C; and
• consider further environmental health investigation on the basis of the current position.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow correct procedures when diverting a long-distance pathway which was also part of the council's core path network. He said this removed his right to object and comment on the proposed diversion.

We found that as the council were not required to close and divert the route, the consultation process would not apply. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the way the council investigated a complaint about the conduct and attitude of an officer at an appeal hearing. Ms C said the officer unreasonably and unfairly undermined her case and was rude and antagonising.

We found the council had appointed a suitable investigating officer and had given attendees, including independent people, the opportunity to contribute their evidence. Ms C was unhappy that the council had not spoken to her or a friend who accompanied her to the hearing. We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision for the council, and that the details of her dissatisfaction were already on record. We were satisfied the council were entitled to give particular weight to the evidence of independent people. We found the complaint had been investigated to the standard and extent we would expect. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that before a class reorganisation, the head teacher of her daughter (Miss A)'s school failed to consult in a reasonable way with Mrs C. Mrs C said that the need to consult was important because Miss A had previously been bullied and had health issues. Mrs C said that when she complained about this to the council, the council failed to handle her complaint reasonably.

We investigated the complaint and found that the council had followed their stated policy. The head teacher informed parents of the forthcoming changes as soon as possible and meetings were held with them. While Mrs C was concerned about her daughter's health, there was no evidence that she had raised this or bullying issues with the school. Once the council became aware of these issues, they looked into them. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

However, the council's response to Mrs C's complaint was confused and took too long. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology for their delay; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of adhering to the stated complaints process.

Summary

Miss C complained that she was excluded from South Lanarkshire Leisure and Culture (SLLC)'s library premises and placed on their violent marker system following a verbal exchange with staff. She complained that her exclusion was unreasonable. Our investigation focused on whether the relevant process and procedures were followed in taking the decision to exclude Miss C.

We noted that SLLC's management rules and founding legislation states that an exclusion order can be issued where someone has persistently contravened management rules and is considered likely to do so again. However, SLLC confirmed that their decision to issue the exclusion order in Miss C's case was based on a single contravention. We also noted that Miss C should have been formally informed of her right to make representations against the exclusion and this did not happen. In addition, we noted that a phone call and a meeting between senior staff and Miss C, which were cited by SLLC as features of the exclusion process, were not documented.

While we identified that Miss C was notified in writing of her placement on the violent marker system, SLLC advised us that this letter was sent in error and that the template had since been removed. We therefore did not consider that they had provision in place to meet their future obligations in this regard. However, we noted that they were still in the process of reviewing their procedures. We considered that it was appropriate for this review to be completed, taking account of the failings our investigation identified, and that it would be beneficial for the relationship between the exclusion and violent marker procedures to be clarified. We noted that Miss C had subsequently been informed that her exclusion had been lifted following review, but she did not receive any confirmation of the outcome of a review of her position as it relates to the violent marker system. In light of the identified failings, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SLLC:

• complete a review of their management rules and violent marker procedure (and the relationship between the two) and inform this office of the steps taken to ensure future compliance with their statutory and procedural obligations;
• remind staff of the importance of documenting the content of meetings and phone calls, particularly where they will be relied upon to support future actions;
• apologise to Miss C for their failure to follow the appropriate procedure when taking action to exclude her from using their facilities; and
• write to Miss C to confirm the position as it relates to information held about her on their violent marker system.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mr A. Mr A had approached the council for assistance in caring for his mother. Mr A was dissatisfied with the way in which his requests were handled by the council. He complained to the council and this was handled through the social work complaints procedure. As Mr A's complaint had been heard by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC), we were limited to considering complaints about the way in which his complaint had been handled. Mr C said that Mr A's complaint had been unreasonably put on hold because Mr A had said he was seeking compensation, that the council had failed to consider and respond to Mr A's comments on the draft report and that it was unreasonable that the council's legal representative stayed with the CRC panel when they broke up for recess.

Following investigations, we concluded that the statutory social work complaints procedure and associated guidance indicated that the council had to receive a clear indication that the subject of the complaint was actively being pursued by legal action before a complaint could be suspended, rather than there being a verbal expression of intention. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also had concerns that the council's own complaints procedure did not reflect the wording of the statutory social work complaints process and recommended that the council review this.

In relation to Mr C's concerns that the council had not adequately considered and responded to Mr A's comments on the draft report, we could see no indication that a full response to the comments was required or that Mr A had been given an indication that this would be given. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. We were concerned that by being invited for comments, this had potentially raised Mr A's expectations that a detailed response would be given and that the matter would be investigated further.

In relation to Mr C's concerns that the council's legal representative stayed with the CRC panel when they broke up for recess, we established that the person in attendance was acting as legal adviser to the CRC and, as a matter of standard practice, they normally remain in the room. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff involved in handling social work complaints of the circumstances in which complaints can be suspended and that if there is any uncertainly regarding whether the complainant is taking legal action against the council, this should be confirmed with them, preferably in writing;
• review the Social Work Resources Complaints Procedure with a view to ensuring that the wording reflects the contents of the directions and guidance on this point; and
• provided the council still wish allow to complainants the opportunity to comment on CRC recommendations, add to the relevant template letter that comments will only be passed to the CRC for consideration and will not be individually responded to.

Summary

Ms C removed her child from school and requested a transfer to a new school as she was concerned about the impact of the school environment on her child's wellbeing. The school raised concerns about her child's absence and scheduled a meeting to discuss this. Ms C subsequently found out that the school nurse had contacted her child's GP to request information just before this meeting and a report had been faxed to the school. Ms C complained that the head teacher inappropriately made this request. In particular, the GP records stated the requested information was required for an inter-agency meeting with child protection concerns involved, when the meeting did not involve other agencies and there were no child protection concerns.

The council said the request was made by the school nurse who only asked the GP practice if someone could call the school to discuss if there was anything in the child's medical history relevant to concerns about their ongoing wellbeing and absence from school. The council said there were no child protection concerns but it was not possible to seek this information from Ms C as she refused to have any contact with them. However, when we asked for evidence of the lack of communication, the council acknowledged that in fact Ms C did have contact with both the school and council officers during this period.

After investigating these issues and reviewing the records from the school and GP we found that although it was clear that inaccurate information was received by the GP about child protection concerns, it was not clear that this was due to the actions of the head teacher and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we were critical that the council did not make any record of the request for information and did not inform Ms C or the child about this. We also found failings with the council's complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that decisions to seek sensitive information about a pupil are adequately recorded and the pupil and/or parents are consulted (unless there is a clear recorded reason for not doing so);
• apologise to Ms C and her child for the failings identified;
• remind staff of the definition of a complaint in their complaints handling procedure;
• review their complaints handling tools to ensure staff are prompted to identify relevant evidence when planning an investigation; and
• audit a sample of recent correspondence to ensure that correspondence meeting the definition of a complaint is being handled under the correct process.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of complaints about the council's handling of a planning application for a house on a plot neighbouring her own. She felt that the council failed to take account of her objections to the application, failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the development, recorded inaccurate site boundaries and incorrectly said in the planning report that there were no trees on site.

We reviewed the evidence and found that the council had taken into account Ms C's objections when assessing the application. They noted the boundary dispute and correctly advised that this was a private legal matter. In addition they imposed planning conditions in order to protect Ms C's amenity.

Although the planning officer said that the site had been cleared and Ms C said that one tree remained on the site, we took the view that the planning officer's description of the site was reasonable. In our view it was appropriate for the planning officer to highlight the site clearance to the council's bio-diversity officer for assessment. We were satisfied that the planning report was appropriate and we considered that the council had given reasonable consideration to the impact of the development on the environment.