Local Government

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.

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.