Local Government

Summary

Mrs C is a tenant of the council. She said that, for two years, there were water leaks from the flat above. She said this caused damage to her property as well as stress and inconvenience to herself. She complained to us that the council had delayed in completing the necessary works. She said that it took too long to find the cause of the water penetration and that, when she complained to the council, there were delays and confusion.

We found that, while the council responded appropriately to the leaks, there had been a delay of a month before necessary electrical safety checks were made. This complaint was, therefore, upheld. It had taken the council some time to find the cause of the water penetration, as there were a number of separate sources. However, we established that this was due to access problems and was outwith the council's control. When Mrs C made her complaint, however, the council did not deal with it in accordance with their stated procedures. All of Mrs C's complaints about the handling of her complaints were upheld.

We found that the council had apologised and taken action to address Mrs C's complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s decision to request a church bell's chime to be switched off following noise complaints from neighbouring residents. The council’s noise team investigated the complaints as per their duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and they used World Health Organisation guidelines to establish whether the measured noise levels would cause sleep disturbance. As the recorded noise levels from one of the complainants’ properties exceeded the guideline level, the council deemed the noise to be a nuisance. They asked for the chime to be switched off until a longer-term solution could be identified. Mr C noted the historic nature of the church bell. He considered that the council were inappropriately treating it in the same manner as a malfunctioning car alarm or a late night party.

The council explained how they investigated the noise complaints. They assured us that they had adhered to their statutory and procedural responsibilities. They noted that their public safety team were responsible for maintaining the church bell. Therefore, they had assumed that the team was also responsible for taking action to resolve the noise complaints. The chime was switched off via an informal agreement with the public safety team and the council felt that a longer-term solution could be quickly identified and agreed. However, it was then clarified that the role of the public safety team did not extend to this, and the church owners were responsible. The council told us they were committed to working with the owners to help find an appropriate solution, and they provided evidence of their ongoing involvement in this process.

Apart from the confusion over responsibilities, we concluded that the decision to ask for the chime to be switched off was a discretionary one that the council were entitled to take. We were satisfied that they provided evidence to demonstrate the basis upon which they exercised their professional judgement. As we did not see any evidence of administrative failure on the council’s part, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning site next to his home. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to provide the public with relevant information on a planning application for a new building; that they had failed to consider objections to the planning application (related to the excessive height at the rear of the development); and had failed to pursue enforcement action to have the building removed.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We noted the council accepted that they had failed to provide all the relevant information to the public. In particular, the level difference at the rear of the development should have been identified when the application was processed. The council had apologised and taken action. The council also accepted that this information would have helped Mr C to raise concerns about the development height during the application process, instead of raising the matter as an enforcement issue after the application was approved.

We found that the absence of approved external measurements made it impossible for the council to specify what height adjustments should be made for the building to comply with approved plans. However, we accepted that any variation in the height of the building from what was approved was likely to be too marginal to be enforceable. We also found that the ground levels on the application plan were entirely misleading, and should have been corrected by the council to note the likely dominant impact of the development on the garden behind. We found no evidence that the height difference at the rear of the development was fully considered during the application process. We considered that the assessment of the planning application was compromised by the lack of recognition of the extent of the change of ground level.

We accepted that the decision not to take direct enforcement action to remove the building was a discretionary decision for the council. However, we considered there had been a delay in taking enforcement action, which undermined public confidence.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the adviser's comments on the need for an accurate survey plan showing the relationship to adjacent developments and ground levels, and report back to us on any action proposed regarding future planning applications;
• consider whether it would be appropriate in this case to pursue a section 71 discontinuation or alteration order; and
• consider this case and the adviser's comments to see if any further lessons can be learned, and report back to us on any action taken.

Summary

Mr C was informed that his daughter (Miss A) would be allocated to a composite class (where two or more year groups are taught together) the following academic year. She was the only female member of her current class who was to be placed in the composite class. Mr C was concerned about the impact of this decision on Miss A and her learning. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to take into account the Scottish Government 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC) provisions. Mr C was also unhappy about the way the council handled his complaint.

We contacted the Scottish Government who explained that, at present, the GIRFEC provisions were best practice. The council explained that best practice was followed when allocating children to composite classes. They said the relevant council policy makes allowances for headteachers to make decisions on the basis of individual needs. If a headteacher judges that a child's needs will not be met, they can exercise their discretion and move the child to a more appropriate class. We was satisfied that, in Mr C's case, the headteacher gave consideration to the relevant criteria for allocating children to composite classes and made their decision on that basis.

Mr C also complained about the way his complaint had been handled. He said that his complaint was not properly understood or represented and that Miss A's previous teachers were not interviewed. He said that it was not demonstrated how his proposed alternative solution would have compromised the council's policy. Additionally, he said that the GIRFEC provisions were not identified as a consideration in the response to his complaint. Following detailed consideration of all the relevant documents and correspondence, we concluded that the handling of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and did not uphold his complaint to us.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's sheriff officers unreasonably visited his home three times during a three-month period, and that a member of staff in the council's collections office was rude and evasive during a phone call.

We found that Mr C was asked by the council to make payments to the sheriff officers, but he declined to do so and wanted to pay the council directly. This meant that there was a delay in updating the sheriff officers' records after payment was made. It was as a result of this delay that, when sheriff officers first visited to serve a charge notice, the outstanding balance on the notice was incorrect. They re-attended having updated the outstanding balance but, once again, Mr C had made a payment in the meantime. They withdrew the notice again and reissued it a few days later for the correct value. As Mr C was asked to make payments directly to sheriff officers but declined to do so, we did not consider the delay in updating the account balances to be unreasonable. As a result, we found that the three visits by sheriff officers were not unreasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also noted that the council did not record their phone calls. We were unable, therefore, to reach a conclusion on Mr C's complaint about the tone of the phone call with a council officer.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about a meeting that the council had held about her son. She said that the minutes of the meeting were inaccurate and she wanted them to be destroyed.

During our investigation, the council told us that they had destroyed the minutes and that the only copies that now remained were held by us and their complaints team. They also confirmed that the minutes had not been sent to Ms C's son's new school. When we discussed this with Ms C, she confirmed that this resolved her complaint and, in view of this, we closed her case.

Summary

Mrs C’s home is next to a facility used for outdoor sports within a school campus. Mrs C complained to the council about noise nuisance from three all-weather pitches which can be hired by the public. She was concerned about noise from users shouting and swearing, as well as balls hitting fencing, which could be heard in her home and garden. Mrs C had previously brought complaints about the facility to us under case reference 201202858. As a result of a recommendation made following this earlier investigation, the council had taken measures to reduce the noise from the facility, including erecting a sound-reducing fence. However, in 2013, Mrs C reported to the council that the measures had not worked. The council took further action but Mrs C remained unhappy with the result. She asked us to consider her concerns that the council had failed to take reasonable steps since 2013 to address continued noise nuisance from the facility.

After taking independent advice from one of our advisers, who is an environmental health specialist, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. The adviser commented that the council had not served a notice to the facility after the noise nuisance had been confirmed, and this was not in line with the relevant legislation. The adviser said that, as a result, the council had been left without a statutory means to ensure that the facility took appropriate action to reduce or stop the noise heard at Mrs C's home. We made a number of recommendations to the council about this matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mrs C for the failure to timeously issue an abatement notice in line with the relevant legislation;
• ensure that relevant staff are aware of their statutory duties in terms of the requirement to serve abatement notices when a statutory nuisance is confirmed;
• investigate the noise from the campus that is affecting Mrs C's property, including the anti-social behaviour aspect of swearing;
• consider, on the basis of the established situation at Mrs C's home and without further delay, whether an abatement notice should be issued in line with the relevant legislation; and
• consider whether there is any other formal action available to deal with audible swearing, if this issue persists.

Summary

Mr C lived close to an industrial site. He complained to the council about a number of issues with the site, including noise and air pollution, and unauthorised and dangerous buildings that had been constructed on the site. Although the council investigated Mr C’s complaints, he did not feel they took strong enough action against the owners and allowed the problems to continue far longer than necessary.

We sought independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He advised that the council had acted in line with relevant planning enforcement guidance and legislation. The council had followed a recognised approach of working with the owners to find a solution that would resolve the issues, rather than simply punishing them with formal enforcement action. Although the owners did not initially stick to the terms agreed with the council, we were not critical of the council’s handling of the situation.

Mr C raised further concerns about the consultation process for a new planning application at the site. Again, we were not critical of the council’s handling of this. However, we were critical of their handling of Mr C’s formal complaint. We found that their response failed to address points that he had raised and failed to adequately explain the council’s actions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider ways to better communicate details of their planning enforcement charter and how it is applied in individual cases to interested parties;
• apologise to Mr C for their poor handling of his complaint; and
• remind their staff of the importance of providing detailed explanations in response to complaints raised by members of the public.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the steps taken by the council after they raised concerns about the bullying their daughter (Ms A) had suffered at school. They were also unhappy at the council’s handling of their complaint and the fact that Mrs C had asked to attend school trips as a parent helper but had not been selected. Mr and Mrs C also raised concerns that the school did not communicate appropriately with health professionals involved with Ms A and that, in their view, school staff had acted inappropriately by discussing Ms A’s impending school move with her.

We recognised the significance of Mr and Mrs C’s concerns about bullying and how this can affect a child and also the wider family. While we took this into account, our role was limited to considering whether the appropriate policies and procedures had been followed. The limited records available (including a playground diary and the school’s paperwork) did not support Mr and Mrs C’s correspondence. Although we recognised that the absence of a record does not automatically mean something did not happen, we did not consider the evidence available pointed to a failure to follow the relevant policy. We did not uphold this complaint but made one recommendation because of the age of the school’s policy and to ensure appropriate record-keeping in future.

We upheld Mr and Mrs C’s complaint about the council’s complaints handling. This was a particularly sensitive and distressing matter for them and the council initially failed to acknowledge their complaint and then missed their deadline for formally responding. We made one recommendation as a result, although we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C’s remaining complaints. Although we recognised that Mrs C had been very keen to assist at school trips, we saw nothing to indicate that there has been a failure to act in line with the relevant policy. In addition, the paperwork available indicated that the school had involved a series of health professionals and did not point to a failure of communication in that regard, nor did we consider the evidence indicated that school staff had inappropriately discussed the matter with Ms A.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider reviewing the school’s policy to ensure it takes account of all relevant Scottish Government guidance, reported incidents and the need to ensure parental contact is recorded accurately; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to handle their complaint appropriately.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably terminated her former tenancy. She told us that when she moved out of her council property, she handed in her keys and an end of tenancy form. We found no evidence of this. The council said they did not receive the keys and form until two months after the date Ms C claimed. They ended the tenancy four weeks later, in line with the tenancy agreement Ms C had entered into.