Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been required by the council to pay an additional fee when renewing his taxi licence. The payment was for the provision of a taxi marshal service, which had then taken 22 months to provide. Mr C said he believed the council had acted unreasonably. Mr C also said his complaint on the matter had been ignored by the council.

We found that the payment was taken prior to the scheme being set up, as it was a requirement that taxi administration be self-funding. It was, therefore, unavoidable that there would be some delay between the payment being taken and the scheme starting. The council had provided evidence that the creation of the new position required a significant re-organisation of the operational area in which it sat. It had then subsequently been delayed by a change in legislation. We found that the council had kept the taxi liaison group properly informed during this period and that there was no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the scheme. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The council had acknowledged that their initial response to Mr C's complaint was late. We found that this was due to human error, rather than systemic failure and although we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, it was not proportionate to make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that in considering a planning application to extend the house next to his, the council failed to carry out what he considered to be a reasonable assessment of the privacy, daylight and amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings) to his home. He said that the developer should have been required to submit plans which clearly showed the proximity and impact of the proposals on his home. He also felt that the application had not been assessed against the relevant planning policies.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, while it may have been preferable for the drawings accompanying and supporting the application to have also shown neighbouring properties in outline, this was offset by the fact that council officers had made a site visit. We also found that, although Mr C said the council failed to follow their own guidance, there was no relevant guidance in place at the time. New guidance was in draft and was only published on the day that planning permission was formally granted. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's garden bordered a field. The council granted planning permission for a residential development on the field. To achieve the desired ground levels for the new site, it was necessary for the developer to dig down some three metres. This resulted in a steep banking being created, running the length of Mr C's western boundary, partly in the garden of one of the new properties and the remainder within an amenity space (an area designed to enhance enjoyment of the surroundings) at the development. Mr C found that his garden ground was being eroded with earth slipping down the banking into the new development. He complained to the council about the lack of retaining wall but was advised that this was not something that would normally be considered under the remit of a planning application. They maintained that this would normally be included by the applicant as part of their proposal, rather than at the insistence of the council. The council also advised Mr C that it was not a building control matter and that he should seek legal advice if he felt the actions of others had had a negative impact on his property.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had consistently maintained that no specific consideration was given to stability as this was considered to fall outwith the remit of the planning service. The adviser did not agree with this approach and considered that, given the significant change in ground level from Mr C's property to the new development, this should have been a material consideration in the council's planning report. We also found that there had been issues with a condition that was attached to the new development's planning permission and that this had caused confusion for local residents such as Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C with an apology for the errors surrounding the condition in question within the planning application;
• provide evidence of the new processes that are in place to prevent a recurrence of such an issue with planning conditions in future;
• issue Mr C with an apology for the failure to take all material considerations into account when determining the planning application; and
• consider how they can assist Mr C to stabilise his entire western boundary at no cost to himself, or otherwise facilitate this outcome. If following consideration, this is not possible, appropriate financial redress should be offered to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained about the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) after they extinguished a fire he had set to dispose of garden waste. They had received a call from a member of public to say that the fire was in a public park. However, Mr C informed them that the fire was actually on his property, which borders the park. The decision was taken to extinguish the fire nonetheless, as they considered that there was the risk of repeat calls requiring further emergency responses.

We found that decisions to extinguish controlled fires are taken at the discretion of the attending officers. As there was no evidence of administrative or service failure in the decision-making process, we found that the decision to extinguish the fire was a discretionary one the SFRS were entitled to take, and that they had acted reasonably in making this decision.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed until 2014 to notify her of works to her home carried out under a statutory notice served in 2007. She said it was only in 2014 that she was informed of the amount of money that she owed. She also complained that the council failed to follow the correct tendering process when carrying out the works.

We found that the original statutory notices were issued to her agent at the time and it would, therefore, have been the agent's responsibility to pass this information on to Miss C. We also looked at the tendering processes followed by the council and noted that they were not required to follow an open tender process for each statutory notice served. We found that the council had used their major works framework agreement when tendering for this work and that this was in line with their obligations. For this reason, we did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh. In 2007 the council issued a statutory notice requiring repairs to a rooftop drying green shared by several properties. The property owners did not appoint a contractor of their own and the council took over responsibility for the works. The owners were provided with an initial estimate of the cost of the works. However, once the work had started, this escalated substantially. Ms C raised a number of concerns about the lack of information as to why the price had changed so much, the council's failure to explain their minimum charges and additional work carried out at extra cost without consultation with the owners.

We were critical of the council's handling of the sizeable cost increase. Whilst there was no suggestion that the work was unnecessary, we found that they could have provided a more realistic estimate at the beginning of the process to better manage the owners' expectations. We were not concerned by their communication of the minimum charges and were generally satisfied that the additional works were added to the project reasonably. However, we commented on the way that these works were communicated to the owners.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their poor communication throughout the repairs project;
• consider how they may better research the likely cost of repairs when issuing their initial estimates; and
• pay Ms C the sum of £250 in acknowledgement of the time and trouble she had to go to to obtain clarification of the works being carried out and their associated costs.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not handled his correspondence and complaints reasonably. He was unhappy that correspondence he had sent had not been answered, that he had not been able to speak with the complaints handler when he called and that there were inaccuracies in the final response to his complaint.

Following careful consideration of the documentation, the council appeared to have only received one letter. There was no acknowledgement or response sent to Mr C. Mr C then contacted the council on a number of occasions to express his dissatisfaction at not receiving a response. The council did not identify these contacts as a complaint. It was only when Mr C approached us that the council logged a complaint - and used a phone note dated two months earlier as the complaint from Mr C, which led to inaccuracies when referring to timescales in the council's final response. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint that his complaint had not been handled reasonably by the council. We recommended that they apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation and remind housing staff of the definition of a complaint and the importance of identifying, logging and responding to complaints and keeping complainants updated as set out in the council's complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind housing department staff (including call handlers) of the definition of a complaint and the importance of identifying, logging and responding to complaints and keeping complainants updated as set out within their complaints procedure.

Summary

As Mrs C lived within a two-mile radius of her child's secondary school, her child was not entitled to free transport to school. Although she accepted this, she considered that the route her child had to walk was not safe because of the lack of lighting, the low priority the path had for gritting in the winter, and the volume of traffic on a fast road. She said that the council had not paid appropriate heed to guidance from the Scottish Government. When she complained to the council about the assessment of the walking route, she did not consider their response adequately addressed her complaints and the issues she raised.

We found that the council had applied an assessment methodology which was developed around English legislation, which did not consider street lighting to be significant. We also reviewed the Scottish Government guidance on this issue, and found that it allowed for significant flexibility in how councils consider various aspects of road safety. We therefore considered that it was reasonable for the council to use the assessment methodology as they did, and this was in line with the exercising of their professional judgement, and so we did not uphold this complaint. We also noted that neither set of guidance mentioned the need to take account of gritting of pavements in winter weather. However, we noted the lack of any internal policy at the time of the assessment in question. The council assured us they had since adopted a policy, but did not provide a copy.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council had not provided clear responses to the concerns which Mrs C raised. We therefore upheld this complaint. We also noted that the officer who investigated the complaint was the same one involved in earlier correspondence on this issue, which raised concerns about the independence of their investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the findings of this complaint to the relevant complaints handling staff; and
• apologise to Mrs C for not responding to her complaints in line with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of matters relating to his granddaughter (Miss A). His son (Mr A) had lost custody of his daughter (Miss A) following separation from his wife (Ms D). Whilst pursuing access to Miss A through the social work department, Mr A and Mr C raised a number of concerns about how their complaints were handled, the accuracy of information in reports, and allegations made about Mr A which they did not consider to be accurate. They also complained that Mr A's application for housing was not handled fairly.

We were satisfied that Mr C and Mr A's complaints were handled appropriately through the social work complaints procedure. Those issues that could not be considered were directed towards other more suitable organisations. We were also satisfied that Mr A's housing application was fairly handled.

We found that the council consistently acted with Miss A's interests in mind and found nothing that would question the validity of decisions made regarding her welfare. That said, we were critical of the council for failing to clearly explain the role of a person appointed to support Ms D, and for failing to properly document their consideration of counter-allegations that Mr A had made against Ms D.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the way that they explain the role of support workers and the level of involvement that they could have in such cases;
• apologise to Mr A for the issues highlighted in our decision; and
• review the extent to which the support worker may have been providing a service to Miss A as well as Ms D and provide details on the outcome of their review to Mr A.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her social work complaint. We found that the council did not follow their own procedures correctly. The council did not tell Mrs C that she could refer her complaint to an independent panel called a complaints review committee (CRC). Mrs C asked for a CRC anyway and the council convened a CRC with an independent chair and two elected councillors, according to the rules.

Mrs C told us there were two specific documents related to the complaint that she wanted CRC members to see. She had asked for them to be included on the agenda but they were not. We found there was evidence of an internal discussion about sharing these two documents, which contained third party information. It was unclear what the outcome of that discussion was. We found no evidence that the council had asked permission from the third parties involved, or that they had told Mrs C the two documents could not be shared, as should have happened. Although we found the council's communication was poor regarding the two documents, we were satisfied that the CRC was able to reach a decision on each of Mrs C's complaints without seeing the documents.

The CRC recommended that the council apologise to Mrs C. This did not happen for many months, until we contacted the council. The council told us that the person responsible no longer worked there and that the outstanding recommendation was not picked up by anybody else. They also issued an apology to Mrs C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer an apology for the communication failures we identified in relation to the handling of Mrs C's complaint; and
• review internal procedures to ensure, in relation to CRCs, that proper records are kept, that communication with complainants is robust, and that there is a system in place for monitoring any outstanding recommendations.