Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had not done enough to prevent their home from flooding. However, the council considered that they had done everything that was reasonable, given competing claims for funds and the budgetary constraints under which they operated.

We found that in 2010 the council had commissioned consultants to look into the cause of the flooding and find options to deal with it. However, the works were not done as there were insufficient funds. Since then, the council had undertaken flood prevention works that were proportionate, and in accordance with their policy and responsibilities under current legislation. They had installed a kerbed drainage unit; regularly inspected and cleared culverts, water courses and gullies; cut back trees and shrubbery; met with a landowner about water flowing from his fields; and met with Mr and Mrs C and others to discuss and advise on options to increase their property's resilience to flooding. Mr and Mrs C continued to have problems but Scottish Government guidance confirmed that the primary responsibility for protecting their property fell to them, not the council. On the basis of these findings, we did not uphold the complaint.

Taking all these factors into account, we found that the council had taken reasonable action. They had acted in terms of legislation and in accordance with their own policy.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably granted planning permission for a house in a small lane where access to the public road could not meet the visibility standards required. He also raised concerns about the impact of this development on parking in the area. Initially, the roads department had refused to support the application as it would have meant vehicles reversing onto the public road. Proposals for a turning area were then included in the plan. The roads department said that, even though the access was still substandard, as similar access arrangements existed elsewhere they would not object to consent being granted. They also noted that the development would only result in the loss of one parking space.

We considered Mr C's complaint and took independent advice from a planning adviser. We were satisfied that, although the access did not meet the usual standards, the council had fully considered the issue of safe access and parking. They had taken into account the steps taken by the applicant to improve access and they considered that, on balance, the proposal was acceptable. As the council were able to demonstrate that they arrived at their decision in a reasoned and justifiable way, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained on behalf of Mr A about what he considered to be unauthorised planning development on a site close to his home. Mr A had previously owned the site and still held two planning permissions with regard to it. There was a dispute about ownership of parts of the site.

Mr A believed that the council failed to take appropriate and necessary enforcement action, and that they went on to approve six planning applications in relation to the site. He said that the applications were not properly assessed prior to approval, and that the environmental health department did not make reasonable objection. Because of the works, Mr A said that his water supply had been disrupted and that the council failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this. He was further aggrieved because he had been issued with a planning contravention notice in relation to the site.

We took independent advice from a planner and we found that, despite Mr A's concerns, there was evidence to show that the council had followed correct procedures. We also found that the question of whether enforcement action was taken was at the discretion of the council, and any action was required to be proportionate. We found that the six applications had been properly considered and that, although three of them were retrospective, this was all in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. The applications had been properly assessed and commented upon by the environmental health department. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that Mr A's water supply had been detrimentally affected, and he had been given appropriate advice in the event that this should happen. It was clear that it had been fully explained to him why he had received a planning contravention notice and why the required information was necessary.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the way the council had dealt with a planning application to develop a site close to her home. Over the years, a number of applications had been made for the site or nearby. Ms C was unhappy that differing noise measurements taken at her home had been accepted by the council. She also said that developers had identified two different sources for her water supply but that the council still went on to determine the planning application. Ms C also complained that the minute of the local area planning committee meeting failed to fully record her feelings about the matter.

We investigated the complaint and took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that although contradictory information had been presented to the council by the developers, this was not a matter within council control. The accuracy of the information was the responsibility of the developer. We found that such information only formed part of the evidence of the likely significance of any environmental effects of a proposed development. The council would consider this alongside other, material considerations when making planning decisions. Moreover, it was not uncommon for a planning authority to 'accept' conflicting evidence knowing it was not a determining factor and that any potential effects could be mitigated by planning conditions.

With regard to Ms C's concerns about the committee meeting minute, it was confirmed that this was not meant to be a verbatim record, but was a way to record the process of the meeting and to inform committee members about the decision they were about to take. The minute was not taken to provide documentary evidence for any other purpose.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the social work department's handling of his concerns regarding his mother. This complaint was considered by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) and was partly upheld. However, Mr C was concerned that the CRC had not been properly conducted and he complained to us about this. He raised concerns that the CRC stopped him from making submissions or asking questions on occasion, which he said meant he had no reasonable opportunity to present his case. He also raised concerns that no minutes were taken at the CRC and there was no reasonable record of the discussion on which the CRC's decision was based.

The council said Mr C had ample opportunity to make submissions and ask questions of witnesses. Although the council acknowledged that the chair of the committee curtailed some of Mr C's questions and submissions, they said this was because he was repeating information or raising points that were not relevant to the complaint. In relation to the records, the council provided a copy of the CRC minute, the decision letter and the handwritten notes from the CRC clerk. The council also noted that there was no requirement to keep a transcript or verbatim record of the CRC hearing.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mr C had been inappropriately stopped from making submissions or questioning witnesses, and the CRC records showed Mr C had an opportunity to present his case, refer to documents and ask questions over several hours. In relation to the records, we accepted that there was no specific requirement to keep a verbatim account of the hearing, but we considered that the council should keep sufficient records of the evidence and arguments considered in order to explain the reasons for their decision. We found, on balance, that the council's records were reasonable. While the decision letter was brief, it did identify the points of complaint which were upheld and not upheld, as well as setting out the CRC's findings and conclusions on each point.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about the repairs the council did to his home following water ingress. He was also unhappy that he was told he would have to pursue the council's contractor if he wanted to make a compensation claim stemming from those repairs, and also with the way that the council handled his complaint.

Mr C had reported water ingress before and the council had arranged repairs as part of an upcoming maintenance project. He reported water ingress again around a year later, in January 2012, and the council attended promptly to lay sheeting in his loft. The evidence indicated that they did work to the slates on his roof in February 2012. However, in July 2012 another repair was needed which identified a problem with their contractor's workmanship during the historic maintenance project. In assessing whether the council had acted reasonably, we found that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's reports and we did not uphold his first complaint. However, as the council neither acknowledged nor responded to Mr C's complaint within the relevant timescales, we upheld his second complaint.

In terms of Mr C being told to raise his compensation claim with the council's contractor, only a court can determine liability. Our role was limited to considering the council's administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council investigated Mr C's claim and passed the relevant information to their claim handlers, whose advice was that the council were not legally liable. Although any compensation claim would still have had to be raised with their contractor, the council agreed a rent rebate and offered Mr C a discretionary payment for his inconvenience. We recognised that, as a council tenant, Mr C felt he should raise concerns with his landlord and we were critical that, on the basis of the paperwork available, there was no clear statement for tenants of the council's position regarding such claims (for example, an information leaflet). In light of the steps taken by the council, we could not say there had been maladministration in reaching their final position and we did not uphold this complaint. In the circumstances, however, we did make recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his complaint;
• work with Mr C to clarify whether their contractor remains in business and how he would go about raising a claim against them; and
• consider how they can improve ease of access for tenants in making such claims against contractors in future (for example, updating relevant leaflets, correspondence and / or paperwork).

Summary

Mr C said the council did not properly consider the local plan, or his objections, when approving a planning application for a nearby development. He also considered that the development did not comply with conditions on the planning approval, and was concerned that the council was not taking formal enforcement action.

The council said the planning officer's report showed they had considered Mr C's objections and the local plan in determining the application. While the council agreed that parts of the development did not fully comply with the approved plans, they said they were taking action to address this. This action included works to improve road safety, as well as requesting a new planning application for parts of the development which had not been built according to the plan. However, the council said they would not consider formal enforcement action until the development was complete (including the approved amendments). The development was completed during our investigation, and the council then issued a formal enforcement notice.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had considered all of Mr C's objections and the local plan in determining the application. In relation to enforcement, the adviser said it was reasonable for the council to wait until the development was fully completed before considering formal action. The adviser also explained that the council has a broad discretion in deciding what (if any) enforcement action to take and, therefore, we found the council did not unreasonably fail to enforce the planning conditions. However, we found that on one occasion the council delayed unreasonably in following up action they told Mr C they would take. We also found that one of the planning conditions was unclearly written, and the council acted inconsistently in deciding that the condition was met, although the actual works it specified had not been carried out.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in following through the actions they told him they would take;
• remind relevant staff of the Scottish Government's guidance on planning conditions relating to precision and enforceability; and
• ensure our findings about the inconsistent approach to condition three are fed back to both planning and transportation staff for learning and improvement.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about the waste provision for her building, as there were ten communal wheelie bins which were often not collected as scheduled. The council upheld her complaint and agreed to conduct a review. They also agreed to replace the wheelie bins with larger communal bins where possible, as there was some confusion about which team should collect the bins.

When the bins had still not been replaced one month later, Ms C emailed the council for an update but did not receive a response. She emailed two further times and again did not get a response, so she brought her complaint to us.

We contacted the council, who said that there had been delays due to competing priorities but agreed to carry out the review. However, Ms C was keen to ensure that the communication issues she had experienced were also addressed. The council accepted that they had failed to respond to her emails, so we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified; and
• contact Ms C to discuss her building's waste provision.