Local Government

Summary

Following a call from Mr C, the council sent a plumber to unblock a drain at his home. Mr C's own plumber had advised that the blockage was in the communal area of pipework and so when the council's plumber unblocked the drain, all residents in the block were invoiced. Mr C paid his share of this invoice. However, the council were then informed by another resident that he had not been affected by the blockage. As a result they contacted their plumber who confirmed that the blockage was in Mr C's pipework and not in a communal area. As a result they withdrew the invoices from other residents and invoiced Mr C for the full costs. They also apologised for not doing so earlier. Mr C complained that he was never told that he would be liable for the costs should the works not be communal and also that he was not told that he would be charged costs at the out-of-hours rate.

The council explained that it was their standard procedure to highlight costs and responsibilities to customers requesting that they attend to emergency repairs. They explained that information about their services and the costs are also available on their website.

The evidence suggested that Mr C's plumber had said that the block was likely to be in the communal pipework, so Mr C should call in the evening and request that a plumber attend. We obtained copies of the council's procedures and phone scripts. Although we were unable to say what was said in the phone calls, we were satisfied that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's request for a service and were justified in invoicing Mr C alone, given that the council's plumber located the blockage in the pipework in Mr C's property. As the evidence suggested that the council dealt with the call out appropriately, and as we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to establish that the council did not inform Mr C of costs and the process during his phone calls to them, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter complained to her primary school of being bullied. The school took some action but the bullying continued. This was repeatedly reported to the school but the situation was not resolved. Mrs C decided to remove her daughter from the school due to the situation and recalled the head teacher saying that she was 'more than happy' for Miss C to move school. Mrs C complained to the council that the school had not taken reasonable action in response to the reports of her daughter being bullied and about the head teacher saying she was 'more than happy' for Miss C to move school. The council's investigation concluded that the school had acted reasonably. Mrs C raised complaints about this with us.

We found that the school had not made any reasonable record of the reports of bullying, the actions taken or the subsequent outcomes. The school's policy and the council's related strategy indicated that this should have been done, and monitoring take place. We decided, therefore, that the school had not taken reasonable action in relation to the complaints of bullying and we made recommendations to address this.

The council told us that the head teacher's remarks had been made in the context of Miss C obtaining a new start from moving schools. We decided that there was no evidence to reasonably conclude that the head teacher had made the remarks Mrs C alleged. We also decided that the council had not responded reasonably to the specific matters raised in Mrs C's complaints and had included irrelevant information in their responses and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and Miss C that the school did not take reasonable action in response to complaints that Miss C was being bullied;
• finalise development of the reporting procedures mentioned in their strategy and implement these;
• assure us that the anti-bullying policies of all schools have been reviewed to ensure that they are in line with their strategy regarding the recording of reports of bullying, action taken and subsequent outcomes;
• assure us that a monitoring system has been put in place to ensure that schools are recording reports of bullying, action taken and subsequent outcomes in line with their strategy;
• apologise to Mrs C that they did not respond to her complaint reasonably; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of responding directly to specific points raised in complaints and that only information relevant to the complaint being considered should be included in complaint responses.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a planning application they had approved for a residential property to be built in a site adjacent to his home, which is on a cliff edge. After approval of the plans, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had visited the site and, in contradiction of the plans, recommended that building should not take place within ten metres of the edge of the cliff. Mr C therefore questioned why SEPA were not consulted at the time of the application and the council responded to say that there was nothing about the application which would have triggered a consultation.

As part of our investigation, the council provided SEPA's guidance for which applications they wished to be consulted upon. This did not include any reference to developments on or near cliff edges. The planning advice we received was that the decision not to consult was at the council's discretion in the circumstances. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's handling of her complaint about the direct payments awarded to her for the care of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs A has Alzheimer's disease and is cared for in Ms C's home. We found that the council should have dealt with Ms C's initial correspondence as a complaint, but had failed to do so. When Ms C then made a further complaint, there was a delay in acknowledging this and in letting her know how it would be handled. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C had then taken her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC), as she was unhappy with the council's response. She complained to us that the CRC had failed to adequately consider some of the points she had raised. In social work cases, there is a separate social work complaints procedure that has been set up by law and ends in an appeal to the CRC. We can look at the CRC process to ensure it has been properly followed, however, this does not include looking at the subject of the complaint to the CRC or reviewing their decision. Whilst we can look at whether or not the CRC took evidence into account, we cannot review how they used this evidence in reaching their own conclusions.

In Ms C's case, we were satisfied that the CRC had considered the points she had raised. It was for the CRC to decide on the issues presented to them and on how much weight to give to the information they received from Ms C and the council. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not complied with the CRC's recommendations. Whilst we recognised that Ms C was unhappy with the action taken by the council in response to the CRC's recommendations, we were satisfied that they had complied with the recommendations. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Ms C for the failures identified in relation to their handling of her complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that he complained to the council in October 2014 about a noise nuisance emanating from business premises close to his home but that they failed to follow correct procedures and delayed in dealing with his complaints. The council said that they had investigated all of his complaints and responded to him but found no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance which they could pursue.

We investigated the complaint and found that after Mr C had been in contact with them, the council made a site visit to the premises concerned, spoke to the operator, issued Mr C with noise logs to complete, installed noise monitoring machinery in Mr C's house and took readings. However, no evidence was produced to confirm that a statutory noise nuisance existed which would have allowed the council to issue a noise abatement notice. We also found that, overall, the council responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints and that there were no unreasonable delays in the way they handled his reports of noise. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's neighbour applied for planning permission to build an extension on the gable end of their property closest to Mr C's property. Mr C received a neighbour notification letter from the council which invited him to submit comments about the application. In response to this, Mr C sent a letter of objection to the council which expressed a number of concerns about the proposed development. Mr C noted that the plans submitted with the application contained inconsistencies and stated that the development was not in accordance with the local development plan for the area. Mr C added that he felt that the development would increase the risk of flooding to his property and would also affect his privacy. The council, after receiving Mr C's letter in addition to relevant consultation responses, decided to grant planning permission to Mr C's neighbour's application.

Mr C was not satisfied that the council had appropriately considered his objections and said that they had not followed the relevant planning rules when considering the application. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had reasonably assessed the effect the development would have on Mr C in terms of the relevant policies and guidance, and had reasonably taken into account the material objections he raised. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the council had upheld one aspect of Mr C's complaint and had agreed to review procedures as a result. We accordingly made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence that a review of procedures in the relevant team has taken place.

Summary

Mr C was involved in a custody dispute with his former partner. Mr C complained that two letters on council headed notepaper were produced in court proceedings which he considered to be false or fraudulently obtained. Mr C complained that the council had not acted reasonably when he reported this to them.

We were satisfied that the council investigated the allegations Mr C made and having established that the letters were unsanctioned and unauthorised, we found that they acted appropriately to remedy the situation by writing to the court and the child benefit office to say so. We were satisfied that the council's obligations under the Data Protection Act meant they were not able to share information about other people with Mr C and were obliged to treat internal staffing matters as confidential. This meant that they were not entitled to share the outcome of their internal investigation with him, or to disclose whether or to what degree staff had been subject to disciplinary action. We determined that the question of whether the matter should have been reported to the police at the end of their internal investigation was a discretionary one.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not served a breach of condition notice in relation to planning permission on a neighbouring property. The planning conditions he referred to related to the running of a commercial business from the property.

After taking independent planning advice on this case, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The adviser explained that planning enforcement is a discretionary matter for the council and we found no evidence of maladministration in their handling of the case.

Summary

Mr C's property was subject to a statutory notice. When the bill for works was provided, a number of years after the notice was issued and the work undertaken, it was significantly above the estimate. Mr C requested the council provide justifications and itemised bills reflecting the reasons for the cost increases. During correspondence on this matter the council offered to deduct an administration charge, stating that the works were subject to lengthy timescales and poor customer service. Mr C sought clarification of a number of points before accepting the overall offer that this was part of. The council decided that the costs were justified but did not provide the requested justification or itemised bills and withdrew their offer to deduct the administration charge. Mr C complained about the lack of explanation as to the costs for the work and the decision to withdraw the offer to waive the administration fee.

We found that the cost of the project escalated substantially due to a number of emergency notices being served during the works. Whilst many of these costs were deducted from the final account, the overall cost was still significantly higher than the original estimate. We were critical of the council for failing to provide a breakdown of these costs as required by their own guidance. We also concluded that it was inappropriate of the council to withdraw their previous offer to waive the administration fee.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to provide a clear, itemised explanation of the costs for work carried out at his property;
• take steps to ensure they have mechanisms in place to accurately itemise and communicate project costs in line with their guidance;
• reinstate their offer to deduct the administration fee and provide Mr C with a revised cut-off date for acceptance; and
• offer to meet with Mr C to clarify any outstanding points before the cut-off date for accepting their full and final offer.

Summary

Ms C raised a complaint about the educational support offered to her son while he was absent from school and when he returned to school on a phased basis. Ms C was also unhappy with the handling of her complaint.

We noted that the council had apologised for the delay in Ms C's son's return to school, for the failure to send work home while he was absent from school, and for the delay in securing a technical teacher to assist her son. However, we were concerned that we were provided with no evidence of any structured approach to Ms C's son's return to school, any mechanism for monitoring the work he had missed, or a plan in place to ensure he could catch up with the work missed.

We were also concerned that when Ms C's son returned to school, while there was a willingness to offer support, there appeared to be no structured plan in place to monitor how well he was catching up and whether any changes had to be made to the support being offered to him. We were also concerned that, while meetings to discuss Ms C's son continued during his senior phase of education, Ms C remained unclear about the support being proposed for her son. We upheld this part of Ms C's complaint.

We were satisfied that the council had reasonably considered and responded to Ms C's complaint, and we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reflect on this case with a view to introducing a structured approach to ensuring pupils' education is maintained where pupils are unable to attend school and that this is properly recorded; and
• if they have not already done so, implement a learning plan for Ms C's son as a matter of urgency, and confirm in writing to Ms C what support is being offered to her son for his senior phase of education.