Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council refused his request for a disabled parking bay outside his home. He has mobility problems following a stroke, and is a wheelchair user. Mr C's wife also has limited mobility, and they are both registered deaf, blind and are blue badge holders.

We found that Mr C's request had been assessed appropriately by the council in line with the legislation, and with the council's own policy. Mr C and his wife did not meet the criteria, as they do not have a vehicle that is suitable for their use registered to them at their home address. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to assess and check that there were suitable alternatives in place which would allow Mr C and his wife to be picked up and dropped off safely when they were taken out. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for additional parking along his parents' street. He said that the council had not fully considered several material planning considerations when they granted consent with conditions, and that he had not been given an opportunity to speak at the council meeting when the application was determined. He also complained that, when he reported to the council that conditions on the planning consent had not been met, the council did not take any enforcement action.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. He noted the procedures which the council had implemented in handling the planning application, and the presentation of the various different issues raised as objections to the application. He reviewed how these had been presented and considered in the report on the application, and considered that the council had taken a reasonable approach to each of the concerns raised. The adviser also noted appropriate consultations with the council's roads department. He reviewed the procedures in relation to public hearings, and was satisfied that the council had applied these appropriately. In terms of following up on the conditions of the consent, the adviser was satisfied that the approach taken by the council had been reasonable, though they noted the extended timescales involved, which were not in line with the council's Enforcement Charter.

We found that the council had followed their procedures appropriately in relation to their consideration and determination of the planning application. We also considered that it was in line with their policies not to allow for public presentations at the council meeting, in relation to this application. In relation to potential enforcement action, we were satisfied that they had taken a reasonable approach in not taking formal enforcement action. However, we were critical that they had not taken prompt action, and that they had not kept Mr C informed of what was happening.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the slow responses to his enquiries and provide him with information about what work remains outstanding, when the council expect completion, and what action they will take if conditions remain outstanding.

Summary

Mr C requested a variation to a planning permission granted to him. The original permission allowed the building of a house and outbuildings, but restricted the use of the outbuildings. Mr C wished to remove the restriction on business use for one outbuilding. He also wanted retrospective approval for the installation of a flue for a wood-burning stove in an outbuilding. The house had not been constructed at this time.

Mr C had engaged in extensive correspondence with the council about possible changes to the planning conditions. The council had responded to these, but had noted that he should seek independent planning advice. Mr C had submitted an application for retrospective planning permission for the stove flue, but this had been rejected.

Mr C complained that the council had not provided reasonable advice on altering the planning condition. He said that they had incorrectly stated he did not have permitted development rights to build the flue for the wood-burning stove. He also complained they had not responded reasonably to his complaint.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser said that the council had acted reasonably and proportionally in dealing with Mr C and in the advice provided by planning officers. We found the council had acted reasonably. Mr C had not taken independent planning advice, despite planning officers suggesting that he do so, and he had agreed to the planning application as submitted. The council had responded appropriately to his complaint, although it was accepted that he disagreed with their position.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that, contrary to the terms of a planning consent, they had allowed an existing road to be 'grubbed out' before a new road was laid. He said that they failed to take enforcement action on this breach of consent and that they failed to take reasonable steps when he reported safety concerns about the new road access.

We took independent advice from a chartered town planner and we found that when Mr C complained about the old road being removed, the council acted on his concerns and made two site visits. The council determined that the new road was acceptable in safety terms and, on this basis, declined to take enforcement action. This was a discretionary decision that they were entitled to take, so we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, although the council looked into Mr C's concerns about the new road access, they failed to give him a reasonable explanation as to why they did not intend to act on them. Because of this, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide an appropriate apology; and
• ensure that the terms of our decision are brought to the attention of those members of staff in the roads and planning department who were involved in the planning applications concerned.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the step at the gated footpath access to her house was broken by a contractor who was working for the council. Mrs C said the damage occurred while the contractor was replacing street lighting on the public footway outside the house.

Mrs C lodged a claim for the damaged step with the council. The council referred the claim to the contractor as they said it appeared from the information Mrs C had supplied that responsibility for the damage lay with the contractor. The council explained they had a contract with the contractor which required the contractor to have in place their own insurance. The council also stated that an indemnity clause in the contract meant that the council were not liable for any damage caused by the contractor and were not required to investigate matters that had been passed to third parties to manage in terms of the contract. The contractor subsequently rejected Mrs C's claim.

Mrs C complained to the council. We considered, from the evidence supplied to us, that it was reasonable for the council to have referred Mrs C's claim to the contractor and that the investigation of the claim and its outcome were a matter for the contractor. However, we also considered this did not absolve the council from addressing the concerns Mrs C had raised in her complaint about the alleged failure of the contractor in communicating with her. We found that no proper consideration had been given to whether Mrs C was still pursuing a claim for damages or making a complaint and that a lack of communication and coordination within the council had led to an unreasonable delay in the investigation of Mrs C's complaint. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• review their processes in relation to complaints handling in cases where more than one council department is involved; and where claims have been made against their contractors.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how school staff handled a report of bullying of her daughter. While Mrs C was satisfied with the handling of the matter at the time, she became concerned some months later when the pupils involved in the bullying behaviour were given additional opportunities within the school. She raised this with the school, as she thought that the bullying incident had been recorded on the pupils' education record, but the school told her the bullying was only recorded on the school's bullying log. Mrs C was dissatisfied with this, and she was also concerned that the school referred to the incident as an 'allegation of bullying' in their later correspondence with her, whereas she thought it had been agreed that bullying had occurred.

The council said the school handled the incident appropriately and in line with their bullying policy (which encourages a restorative approach). We asked the council to clarify whether they had found that bullying had occurred as this was not clear from the bullying log, and they confirmed that the incident had been recorded as one of bullying behaviour.

After investigating the matter, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. We found that staff complied with most aspects of the school's and the council's policies, including involving parents, arranging a restorative meeting and supporting Mrs C's daughter. However, the bullying log completed by the school did not match the form set out in the council's policy, so there was no detailed contemporaneous record of the investigation and findings. We also found that staff did not appear to be familiar with the school's bullying policy which required the incident to be recorded on the pupils' records, and they were following the council's bullying policy instead (which did not include this requirement).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and her daughter for failing to comply with some aspects of their policies in responding to their concerns about bullying; and
• review the school's bullying policy and reporting forms, to ensure that there is clear and consistent guidance on this process (and that this complies with the council's bullying policy and templates).