Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the standard of work undertaken at their property by a company installing insulated cladding. The company had a contract with the council, who were coordinating this work under Scottish Government grant funding. The company were responsible for offering the insulation works to owner occupiers, and Mr and Mrs C signed a contract for them to deliver this work.

The council's role was to monitor the works as they were being undertaken, to ensure that they were of an appropriate standard, and to ensure that appropriate materials were used. This was to ensure that the final product fulfilled the criteria for a full warranty on the works. They also took on a role as intermediary in any dispute between the company and Mr and Mrs C.

Our investigation found that the council inspected the works as they progressed, and were satisfied with the work on site. Mr and Mrs C started to express dissatisfaction when the work was nearly completed. The council discussed these concerns with them and with the company. Over the period of a year they worked with both sides to try and find a satisfactory resolution to the issues raised, but Mr and Mrs C remained dissatisfied.

We found that the council had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to the work being undertaken and we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We did however note that Mr and Mrs C's contract was with the company, so they could pursue the issue further with the company if they wished to do so.

Summary

Miss C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application; in particular, that the development had not been built in line with approved plans. Miss C was also concerned that she had not been notified about amended plans which had been submitted. She also complained that the council failed to include a screening condition within the planning decision notice, and about the council's handling of her representations.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Miss C's concerns about the planning merits of the development and while there was a variation in relation to the height of the development, this was small and did not represent a material difference. As such, no further action was necessary. We found no evidence of fault in the handling of the planning application. While we also found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision that there was no need for a screening condition, we were concerned that Miss C had been provided with conflicting information on this matter.

While we did not find that the council's responses to Miss C's representations were unreasonable, we found that they should have clarified at an earlier stage whether Miss C was raising a complaint in terms of their complaints handling procedure and should have provided information on progressing her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure in relation to identifying complaints at the outset and providing relevant information on progressing a complaint;
• apologise for their handling of this matter; and
• review this case to see if any further lessons can be learned to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the council's application of their unacceptable actions policy (UAP). Mr A had been in contact with the council over a number of years about matters relating to the care of his child. Following concern about the nature and frequency of Mr A's contact with the council, they notified him that they had applied their UAP to manage his contact with them.

We found that the council had decided to implement their UAP after proper consideration had been given to Mr A's communication with their staff, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the council had applied the UAP inconsistently or that they had acted unreasonably in not inviting either Ms C or Mr A to meetings regarding his child, so we also did not uphold these aspects of the complaint although we did make a recommendation about the council's procedures for arranging such meetings.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that there appeared to be an ad-hoc approach to the council reviewing Mr A's status under the UAP and lack of communication with him about this, although we were satisfied that they had since carried out a review, so we did not make any further recommendations about this. We also found that there were unreasonable delays in some of the council's responses to Mr A's complaint, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint too.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that parents are notified of the dates of any forthcoming reviews regarding their children; and
• take steps to ensure that complainants' representatives are notified if UAP restrictions are to apply to their correspondence as well.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council after they refused to provide her with a bigger bin. She stated that the current provision was not sufficient for her needs as she had a large household. However, the council had carried out assessments of her waste and found material they said could have been recycled or disposed of in other ways. They stated that, had this taken place, she would have had sufficient capacity for her needs but Miss C disputed that the assessments had been accurate.

On investigation, we found that the council had photographic evidence to support their statements and, while this was not conclusive due to the nature of the assessments, there was no evidence available to suggest that they had acted incorrectly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

However, we also identified that the council's second stage complaint response had been very brief and lacked sufficient detail to fully explain the reasons for their decision. As such, we made recommendations in relation to this failing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the lack of detail provided in their complaint response; and
• reflect on this to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the level of detail required in a second stage response.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of complaints with the council about how she felt the school were failing to provide a safe and supportive environment for her oldest son. Mrs C also complained that the response to her youngest son's allegation about being hit by a teacher was inadequate.

After the council investigated the issues, it found the school considered that some of the incidents could have been handled differently. Whilst the issues were addressed by the school over time, we found that they should have been addressed from the outset given they related to a young child's health and safety, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We did not uphold Mrs C's other complaints. We identified sufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to address her oldest son's support needs at an early stage and measures put in place with appropriate review taking place. There was also insufficient evidence to indicate that there was an issue with him being bullied. Although we considered that the council's response to Mrs C's complaint about her youngest son being hit by a teacher should have been fuller - and we made a recommendation about this - we found that there was clear evidence to demonstrate the school had taken reasonable action to investigate the allegations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not addressing the health and safety concerns in a timely manner; and
• ensure that witness statements are obtained where appropriate, and relevant information is included in complaint responses, in order to demonstrate that the issues have been thoroughly investigated and the outcome clearly explained.

Summary

Ms C complained that, following an agreement with the council that certain items would be removed from her late father's property following his death, the council in fact cleared the whole property, including personal effects.

The council acknowledged that this had been due to a miscommunication between their staff and apologised for the error. They had offered compensation but Ms C was not satisfied with the amount offered and that the rationale behind the amount had not been explained to her. Despite Ms C requesting an explanation from the council shortly after they made the offer, no explanation was forthcoming, despite a reminder from Ms C. The council eventually explained that a proportion of the compensation reflected the estimated cost of furnishings removed from the property and a proportion was intended to provide a contribution towards a memorial for Ms C's father in recognition of the personal items that were lost as a result of the miscommunication. However, this explanation was not given until some two and a half months later, and after Ms C had brought her complaint to us.

Our investigation focused on the council's delay in providing the explanation and found that despite the information being readily available at the time of Ms C's original request, it was not provided in a timely manner. The information was neither confidential nor commercially sensitive so there was no reason not to provide it to Ms C. We found this to be unreasonable, so we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in explaining the rationale behind the compensation offer.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C had a number of concerns about their daughter's school and raised this with the head teacher. The head teacher met with them to discuss this, but they remained concerned that the issues had not been resolved. They also felt the school took subsequent action against their daughter as repercussion for their complaint. Mr and Mrs C raised their concerns with the council, who undertook several investigations of the issues over the next year and a half.

The council acknowledged that there had been poor handling and communication in relation to Mr and Mrs C's complaints, which had caused a prolonged period of frustration for them. While they did not uphold all of Mr and Mrs C's complaints, they apologised for the way things had been handled and took action to improve their processes, including developing new complaints handling guidance for schools and creating a new role to oversee complex complaints. However, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to us.

We investigated and upheld two of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. While we found no evidence that the head teacher failed to keep a commitment made to follow up an issue, we found a number of failings in the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's subsequent complaints. In particular, we were critical that the council undertook several 'informal investigations' when the complaint was first made, rather than following their complaints procedure. We were also concerned that the council did not refer to relevant policies in their final complaint response. While we noted that the council had apologised and taken steps to improve their complaints handling, we made some additional recommendations to ensure that this action would address the failings we found.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• demonstrate to us that education and schools staff have been made aware of the new guidance and processes for complaints;
• take steps to ensure that complaints handling staff routinely consider which policies may be relevant to the complaint;
• write to Mr and Mrs C and their daughter (as applicable) to clarify what action was taken in response to the upheld parts of their stage two complaints; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C and their daughter for the overall failings our investigation found.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour when investigating their complaints about their neighbour.

We investigated the complaint and it was recognised that Mr and Mrs C had long-running concerns about their neighbour, and that counter allegations had been made about them. We found that the neighbour had been spoken to after incidents were reported and, on two occasions, had been issued with warnings by the council. Advice had been given and mediation was offered (but refused by the neighbour). Furthermore, in recognition of the breakdown in their relationship, the council had offered Mr and Mrs C a housing move. The council had made two offers, both of which were refused. While it was acknowledged that the situation was stressful and upsetting for Mr and Mrs C, there was no evidence that the council had not dealt with their complaints appropriately, so we did not uphold their complaint.

Summary

Mr C owned a property in Edinburgh. Between 2008 and 2010, four statutory notices were issued by the council requiring work to be carried out on the property. The council were asked to take over management of the works. Although the work was completed in February 2012, the council did not issue Mr C with an invoice until March 2014. He considered there to have been an unreasonable delay to the invoice. He also complained that the project had been managed poorly with unnecessary delays. He noted that the responsible department within the council was placed under investigation and considered that this was evidence of poor management practices. In the circumstances, he did not feel it was appropriate for the council to charge their normal 15 percent administration fee.

We found that the invoice was delayed while an independent investigation was carried out into the property conservation service's handling of all statutory notice projects. We considered it reasonable for the council to await the outcome of the investigation rather than issuing an invoice that may later turn out to be inaccurate. We considered that the independent investigation appropriately sought to check the management of each project on its own merits. Whilst there were widely publicised cases of poor management of statutory notice works, this did not affect Mr C's case and we, therefore, had no grounds to recommend that the council's fees were waived.

Summary

Ms C owned a property, behind which were three garages. Planning consent was granted for one of the garages to be converted into an office. Due to its close proximity to Ms C's property, a condition was included in the consent requiring the developer to replace the garage's window with glass blocks, to maintain Ms C's privacy. However, the developer installed a plain window which, whilst opaque, could be opened.

Ms C was disappointed to find that the council declined to take enforcement action to ensure that the required blocks were installed. She complained that the council failed to respond to her correspondence on the matter and failed to review their decision not to enforce the condition.

We found that the council had concluded that the original condition was worded in such a way that it was unenforceable. We accepted independent planning advice that this was not the case and that the council could have done more to ensure that Ms C's privacy was protected in line with the planning consent. We were also critical of their handling of her complaints and their failure to respond to relevant information she presented to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with details of the action they have taken to improve their mechanisms for logging and responding to correspondence coming into the planning enforcement service;
• conduct a review of their handling of this case with specific regard to the adviser's comments and consider what action may still be open to them to ensure that the purpose of the condition of consent is achieved;
• apologise to Ms C for the poorly worded condition and the impact that this has had on her amenity (enjoyment of her property or surroundings); and
• share our decision with the relevant staff.