Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out a full and proper investigation into the complaint he raised about the provision of a service from the social work department. It was not clear to us why the council had failed to offer Mr C the opportunity to have his complaint considered through the social work complaints process and request a complaints review committee hearing (CRC). We sought legal advice which confirmed Mr C's entitlement to request a CRC. Having obtained this advice we approached the council who agreed with our interpretation of the regulations and agreed to allow Mr C to request a CRC. As this was the proper route to have his concerns explored, we advised Mr C of this step and closed our file.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the demolition of two sites close to his property. In particular, he was concerned that he had not received neighbour notification prior to the demolitions being carried out. He also complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his concerns about the two sites.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. During our investigation the council provided evidence of the action taken in relation to both sites which included instructing emergency action in relation to one of the sites under the terms of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. We found no evidence which required that neighbour notification should have been carried out prior to the demolitions carried out on both sites. Overall we were satisfied that that the council had taken reasonable action in response to the concerns raised about the two sites, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C's son (Mr A) went to a school that was not in the council's area. Mr A attended the school seven days a week, coming home only at the end of term. Mrs C wanted the council to pay for transport costs for visits during term time. The council would only pay costs to take Mr A to school at the start of term, and return him home at the end of term. Mrs C complained to us that it was unreasonable of the council to pay only these transport costs, that the council did not include her or Mr A when making the decision, and that the council failed to keep records about the decision. Mrs C was also unhappy with the council's response to her complaint.

It is clear that the situation was very difficult for Mr A and Mrs C. However, we had to explain to Mrs C that complaining to us was not a route to appeal the council's decision. Instead, our role was to determine whether the council acted in line with relevant policy and procedure.

We looked at the council's policy and found that they had discretion to pay costs they determined were appropriate. Although Mrs C disagreed with the council's decision, there was no evidence that they had acted outwith their policy. We considered that the council's communication with Mrs C could have been better. However, there was no requirement for the council to include Mrs C and Mr A in the decision-making process. We also found that the council had investigated Mrs C's complaint thoroughly and provided a reasonable response. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

The council were aware that, other than letters to Mrs C about their decision on transport costs, there were no records. The council acknowledged that it was best practice to keep records, and they were looking into how they could do this from now on. We concluded that it was good practice to keep records, for example, making even a brief file note of important conversations which relate to the decision-making process. This would ensure there was an audit trail of how and why important decisions were made. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with a copy of their consideration of, and plan for, record-keeping.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that the conditions of a planning application had not been fulfilled. She remained unhappy at the conclusion of the complaints procedure and brought her complaints to us. We thought that it may have been possible to resolve the matter but our attempts did not result in this. Mrs C then did not respond to our efforts to contact her, and we decided that we would not consider the matter further.

Summary

A developer had demolished a farm steading and begun construction of a new building without getting planning permission. The council served stop and enforcement notices on the developer that required the building works to be stopped, the foundations of the new building to be removed and the steading reconstructed. Some years later, the developer applied for permission to construct a new building on the site and the council granted consent.

Mrs C, a neighbouring property owner, complained that the council had failed to follow through on the original enforcement notice requiring the removal of the foundations and rebuilding of the steading. She said they had unreasonably used the fact that there were existing, though unapproved, foundations as justification for granting consent on the new building. She also raised concerns about the omission of details about the enforcement notice on the planning officer's report, their failure to take into account her concerns about the local water supply, and their failure to deal adequately with her complaint.

We found that the council had acted reasonably, and within their discretion, when taking enforcement action against the developer. We did note that the enforcement notice was inappropriately worded and required works to be carried out which, if enforced, would have effectively granted consent for a new building in an area which, at that time, was against the terms of the local development plan. We noted that the local development plan had changed since then and now allowed for new development in the countryside, and that this was the reason the new application was granted. We also found that the council had taken into account Mrs C's concerns about water supply and had placed conditions on the planning consent requiring that her supply be unaffected by the new development. We did not uphold these elements of her complaint. However, we noted that it would have been good practice for the planning officer's report to have included details of the enforcement notice in the site history section, and we noted some inaccuracies and delays in the council's responses to the complaint. We upheld these elements of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the importance of preparing clear and enforceable notices;
• review this case to identify why the existence of the enforcement notice was not included in the planning report and whether there were any procedural reasons for this omission; and
• remind staff of the importance of accurately addressing complaints and dealing with correspondence in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary

A window at Mr C's property was damaged. The council made a repair that was not effective and it was not until some weeks later that they fixed the problem. Mr C complained and the council told him the initial repair had been effective. He remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We found there was evidence to suggest that the repair had not been effective and that, if it had been, it would be reasonable to expect the council to hold evidence that showed this. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failures identified;
• remind appropriate staff to check that responses to complaints make reference to all council actions relevant to the subject of complaint;
• remind appropriate staff that correspondence indicating that the complaints process has been completed should not be provided to complainants while investigations are still on-going; and
• provide Mr C with a goodwill payment equivalent to four weeks of his rent in recognition of the inconvenience he suffered due to their not providing an effective repair to windows at his property within a reasonable timescale.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. He was concerned that the council accepted plans of the proposed extension that resulted in an incorrect impression being given of the size of the extension, and that there were errors in the report prepared on the application. He was also concerned that the extension was out of character with the surrounding area and would have a detrimental effect on his amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings), in that his sunlight and daylight would be compromised. Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond to his concerns about these issues. He also complained that the council had failed to follow their complaints procedure.

During our investigation we took independent advice from our planning adviser. We found that, while there were some errors in the report prepared on the planning application, these were not material to the decision on the application. We were also aware that the professional judgement of the council was that the development would not have a detrimental impact on neighbourhood character or amenity. We were satisfied that the council properly took into account the relevant guidance and planning policies. In the absence of evidence of procedural omissions in the council's handling of the application we did not uphold this complaint.

On the issue of sunlight and daylight, our adviser said that the council properly assessed these as planning authority, and that the development would not result in any unreasonable loss of natural light to neighbouring properties. We were satisfied that the council had reasonably responded to Mr C's concerns about these issues and we did not uphold the complaint.

We were also satisfied that the council considered and reasonably responded to Mr C’s representations. While we were concerned that, although Mr C indicated during stage one of the council's complaints process that he wanted to submit further comments, he was not then given a reasonable opportunity to do so, we were satisfied that he was able to submit detailed comments during the council's consideration of his complaint at stage two.

Summary

Mrs C submitted a request for her daughters to move school. She contacted the council and recalls being told that, given her address was within the catchment area and her family observed the religion associated with the school, her daughters would be eligible for free school transport. When the transfer request was granted, though, Mrs C was told that her daughters were not entitled to free school transport. She complained to the council who maintained that the decision was in line with their policy. Mrs C was dissatisfied and raised her complaints with this office. We could find no clear, objective evidence that Mrs C had been told her daughters would be eligible for free school transport and all the council's relevant publications made it clear that free transport would not be provided in such circumstances. Given this, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the ongoing bullying their son had experienced over a number of years at his school. After several meetings with school staff, Mr and Mrs C complained to the council that the school were not providing a safe environment for their son. They said that not enough was being done to respond to their concerns for their son's welfare and that the issues affecting him continued.

Our investigation found that Mr and Mrs C's son had suffered from bullying behaviour. The council provided evidence of the action being taken in response to the reports of bullying behaviour and that the situation was being monitored. We were concerned that there was a lack of records in relation to the various meetings held with Mr and Mrs C since 2012 when they first reported their concerns. The council provided evidence that records of meetings were now being held and all incidents had been reported and had been investigated where there was sufficient information to do so. The council explained that it was important that all alleged incidents were reported at the time they took place so that the school could follow these up at the time. The council explained that when information was inaccurate or out-of-date, school staff struggled to investigate allegations.

Mr and Mrs C also complained that the council had failed to investigate and respond to their concerns. Based on the available evidence, we were satisfied that the council had agreed the points of concern and had carried out an investigation in line with their complaints process.

Summary

Mrs C made several reports to the council about anti-social behaviour by a council tenant and her visitors. She complained to the council that they had not taken sufficient action to protect her and asked that they investigate her complaints. The council responded that support services had been involved and that, as there had been no recent reports of anti-social behaviour, they had closed their case. They also said that they had repaired the damage to their tenant’s door after the most recent incident. Mrs C was not satisfied that they had done all that they should to resolve the problems she and her neighbours faced.

We investigated the complaint and the council provided their records. We recognised that, due to confidentiality, the council had not disclosed to Mrs C details of the action taken in response to her complaints. As a result, Mrs C had gained the impression that insufficient action was being taken. However, in response to our enquiries, the council provided us with information about their action.

We recognised that, as it had been agreed that Mrs C would report any incident verbally, the council had not provided an incident diary. However, we felt that the council should have considered the use of such a diary, as this would have enabled Mrs C to have a written statement of the incidents. In addition, while there had been a delay in completing all the repairs to the door, these had now been completed.

While we recognised that Mrs C was only provided with limited information on the action being taken by the council, we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council took reasonable action to address the complaints received. We did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the use of diary sheets in similar situations, in line with the procedures.