Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not thoroughly investigated her concerns about the conduct of an employee. Mrs C also complained about the time taken to investigate her concerns.

While we were unable to release further information to Mrs C during the investigation, as it was protected third party information, we were able to see that the council had thoroughly investigated Mrs C's concerns. While the investigation had taken longer than anticipated, there was good reason for this and the council were actively investigating throughout that time. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, was unhappy with the steps the council had taken as her landlord. Her property had required a substantial repair the day after she moved in and, from the outset, she did not think it met the required standard of repair. Ms C was also unhappy with the amount of compensation they offered her following this, the fact that they did not provide her with alternative living and storage arrangements while works were being done, and also with the time taken for subsequent repairs.

The council said that, when they did their normal inspection of the property before allocating it to Ms C, there had been no clear signs pointing to the problem. However, a historic repair they had done had been inadequate – it led to the additional repair then being needed. Therefore, on balance, we considered the evidence available indicated that the council had not provided a flat that met the required standard of repair when Ms C moved in. We upheld this complaint.

Our role in considering Ms C’s compensation claim was limited to the council’s administrative handling of it. The evidence indicated that the council had offered Ms C the amount she had asked for. She said she would have asked for more had she known it would have been offset against her council tax arrears, but the council's guidance did explain that would happen. In addition, the form she signed included a declaration that Ms C had read and understood this guidance. However, the evidence also indicated that the council did not adjust Ms C’s award for depreciation or the lack of documentation, which they said they would do. The council had increased their offer following her additional contact and we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C’s lease said the council could require her to move temporarily for necessary repairs, but not that they had to move her for all repairs. They had offered alternative accommodation following the initial issue and during more recent repairs. There was no evidence that the council had to offer storage. Accordingly, we did not uphold this complaint. Finally, the evidence indicated that the council’s subsequent repairs had taken longer than they should have done, and they acknowledged that their historic repair should have gone further than it did. Although the flat was not actually Ms C’s home at that point, their delay in properly repairing the underlying problem materially affected her once it was her home. We upheld this complaint and made three recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the failings identified;
• check that there are no outstanding repairs at Ms C’s property for which they are responsible; and
• review this matter for any possible areas for improvement (for example, consider ensuring repairs are recorded from the date they are reported so they can be tracked appropriately).

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. He was concerned that, having received notification of the approval of the planning consent, he discovered that the original plans for the extension had been amended. The plans now included what he considered to be two non-compliant windows (in terms of the separation between the windows) on the front of the extension. Mr C was aggrieved that he had received no notification about this amendment. He also disagreed with the council's decision to accept obscure glazing for these two windows to reduce an element of overlooking. Mr C also still thought that the approved proposal included what he considered to be another non-compliant window in terms of window separation. This window was on the side of the extension. Mr C complained that the extension would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings).

During our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that the role of the council's guidelines was one of guidance, and that all proposals were different and required to be assessed based on their own individual merits and the local context. We were satisfied that the council had addressed Mr C's concern about the issues he had raised, in particular in relation to the amendment that was made to the proposal to include two obscure glazed windows on the front of the extension, and the separation distance of the window on the side of the extension. We did not find that the decision taken by the council to accept the two obscure glazed windows was unreasonable and we were satisfied that it was for the council, as planning authority, to decide what notice to give other parties of such a variation. We were also satisfied that the council had explained that the side window on the extension did not cause a window-to-window distance issue and that their decision to accept clear glazing on this window was not unreasonable.

We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, material considerations of 'overlooking' and 'residential privacy' had been dealt with in a manner which was not unreasonable. While we found that it had not been helpful that the report prepared by the council on the planning application had not included basic dimensions relating to window-to-window distances, in the absence of evidence of procedural omissions by the council in their handling of the application we did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the comments of our adviser in relation to the omission of dimensions relating to window-to-window distances in the report of handling, and the availability of detailed calculations and diagrams for public inspection, be brought to the attention of relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their anti-bullying policies when they were informed of incidents of bullying against his son. In particular, Mr C was concerned about an incident, which occurred in early 2015, which was not dealt with as an incident of bullying. He was also concerned that the council failed to deal with previous incidents of bullying appropriately.

The council's investigation found no evidence of earlier incidents of bullying which were not properly dealt with at the time. They did, however, acknowledge that the incident which occurred in early 2015 should have been handled differently and in line with their anti-bullying policy.

Mr C was not happy with the council's response and he approached our office. We noted previous incidents recorded by the council but, as Mr C had not provided any evidence or detail of previous incidents, we could not conclude that there were other instances which the council had failed to record. We agreed with the council that they had failed to deal with the incident in early 2015 in line with their anti-bullying policy and, as a result, we upheld the complaint. We found that the steps taken by the council following their review of the complaint were appropriate and comprehensive, and we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way in which the council’s planning department handled an application for the change of use of office buildings which neighboured their property. They raised concerns that the proper scrutiny measures were not used in assessing the application, that consultations were inadequate and that the department failed to refer the matter to Scottish Ministers. They complained about the adequacy of the council’s assessment of the application in terms of environmental impact and amenity (enjoyment of the property or surroundings). They also considered that the planning report’s reference to a similar previous application was misleading. They complained that other non-planning legislation existed that would prevent the building being used for its intended purpose. They considered that the council should have taken this into account.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. This indicated that the council advertised the application in line with the law and they carried out appropriate consultations. We were advised that the application did not fit the criteria for referral to Scottish Ministers and that the council had no obligation to subject it to further scrutiny measures. We concluded that the council appropriately assessed the application and took all relevant information into account. We considered it reasonable for the report, in outlining the area history, to have referred to a previous application. In terms of whether the operation of the proposed facility would comply with other legislation and standards, we were advised that this was a matter for relevant other authorities and/or the courts, and not the council as planning authority. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the council’s handling of the application and we did not uphold the complaints. We did uphold a complaint about a delay by the council in responding to this complaint, but we noted that they had already acknowledged and apologised for this and that the delay was not significant.

Summary

Ms C submitted a housing application for relocation to a different property. She listed a number of areas where she would be prepared to live. She identified a property in her preferred area which was empty and expressed her interest in it to the council. She was told that the property was occupied, however, her interest in it was noted by the council. Ms C was subsequently contacted by the council regarding a second property in another area. She went to view it, but later declined it.

In the meantime, Ms C had learned that the first property had become available. However, she was told that as she had 'pre-accepted' the other property she had been taken off the allocations list pending her viewing of the other property. The original property was allocated to another applicant.

Ms C complained that she had never 'pre-accepted' the other property and had only agreed to view it. She also complained that her note of interest in the first property was not taken into account and the council provided her with inaccurate information regarding her status on the allocations list.

We found that although inaccurate information was issued to Ms C, this was then rectified appropriately. With regard to the allocations process, we accepted the council’s position that a 'pre-acceptance' process is applied to all applicants. This means that one applicant cannot be offered two properties simultaneously, and ensures a fair and efficient process. We found that, whilst Ms C was temporarily taken off the allocations list while she considered the other property, this did not affect her chances of securing the first property. The first property was categorised for allocation to applicants with a priority need for which Ms C did not qualify. Whilst some of the council’s communication could have been clearer, we were satisfied that Ms C’s application was considered appropriately.

Summary

Ms C built a new house. A planning application was submitted for another new house to be built on the neighbouring plot of land. Ms C was not notified of the proposed development and, therefore, missed the opportunity to submit representations. The development was subsequently approved. When she learned of the approval, Ms C wrote to the council outlining her objections which included the close proximity, overlooking and overshadowing of the new house to her home. She also objected to the council’s approval of a late decision to relocate the new house within the site without consulting owners of neighbouring properties.

The council accepted that they had not issued a neighbour notification notice to Ms C before giving consent for the new development. This was because her new house did not yet show on the maps that were used to identify neighbouring properties. However, the council felt that they had met their obligation to advertise details of the development in the local press.

We found that advertising in the local press was insufficient and there was a clear requirement for the council to notify Ms C. We were critical of their failure to do so and sought evidence of the procedural changes they have implemented to avoid similar problems in the future. That said, we were satisfied that the points she raised as objections had been considered by the planning officer before the planning permission was granted. We were also satisfied that the relocation of the property was permissible as a non-material variation to the original plans and that no neighbour notification was required for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Ms C for failing to properly notify her of the planning application; and
• demonstrate to us that changes to the neighbour notification process have now been implemented to ensure that all neighbours (including recent/new builds) will be notified.

Summary

Mr C complained to our office about the council's actions when considering a number of amendments to a planning application for a house being constructed near to his home. He was unhappy that the council had granted planning consent for changes to the building which required a significant amount of under-building, below ground level, which he felt was contrary to the local development plan and which he said had been refused for a neighbouring property. He was also unhappy that the council considered changes to the dimensions of the proposed building, which required an increase in under-building, as a non-material variation rather than as a full planning application.

Although we did not review the original planning consents for this building as they were granted some years ago, and before Mr C purchased his property, we did review the recent planning applications and non-material variations considered by the council. We reviewed the application which considered the installation of a retaining wall resulting in a large area of exposed concrete, making the construction significantly more visible from Mr C's property, and we also took independent advice from our planning adviser. From our review we were satisfied that the planning officer properly detailed the impact of this proposal in his report, noted the relevant development plan policies which were relevant in this case and provided details of his assessment of the application. We also noted that the officer had recommended that conditions be imposed in order to mitigate against the impact of this large area of wall, including raising of the ground level, tree planting and stone cladding. We also noted that each of the non-material variations to the original planning consent were for minor amendments which did not raise additional material planning issues. As a result of this, we were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps to assess the application as presented to them and had properly considered minor amendments to the original application as non-material amendments. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with these matters, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C lives near a former quarry site where planning permission was granted for the erection of buildings and stabilisation works some years ago. When works began she became concerned that the site was operating as a quarry and outside the planning conditions imposed by the council. She complained to the council about this.

The council responded that the developments appeared to be progressing in accordance with the relevant approvals. They said that no conditions had been made in relation to the specific matters that Mrs C raised and that there had been no breaches of the planning conditions, but that concerns about these matters had been passed to relevant departments.

Mrs C was dissatisfied with the council’s responses and complained to us that the council's statement that there had been no breaches of planning conditions was inaccurate. Mrs C's specific concern was that the site was operating outside the times set out in the conditions relating to the two approvals.

After investigating Mrs C's complaint, we found that the operating times stated in the conditions related to after the development had been completed, not during its construction and, therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way that his child's school managed a residential trip. Mr C's child has special needs and required medication to be administered by staff during the trip. Mr C was concerned that medication had not been given as instructed and that there was no medication record. Information provided to Mr C by the council during their complaint investigation led him to believe that his child may have been given medication prescribed to another pupil. Mr C also complained that there was a lack of appropriate supervision during a visit to a restaurant. The school later decided that Mr C's child should be excluded from a forthcoming trip. Mr C complained that a medical professional involved in his child's care was not consulted before this decision was reached. Finally, Mr C was unhappy with the way the council had addressed his concerns.

Our investigation found that the school had not kept any record of the medication that was given to pupils during the trip and that they had not retained a copy of Mr C's written instructions detailing timings. Consequently, we upheld Mr C's three complaints regarding medication as the council were unable to provide any evidence that medication had been administered appropriately. Following assessment of the council's complaint responses, we also upheld the complaint that they had not properly addressed his concerns. We found that the council had not responded to all the issues he raised and had not made it clear that they held no medication record.

After considering Mr C's complaints about supervision and consultation with a medical professional, we found that there was no evidence of maladministration on the part of the council. We did not uphold either of these elements of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C and his family with an apology for the failure to keep an accurate record of the medications administered during the school trip;
• provide evidence of how the arrangements for medication on trips have been improved to avoid a recurrence of such failings in future;
• consider whether there are merits in consulting other professionals involved in a pupil’s care when completing person-specific risk assessments;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to address his concerns appropriately in the response to his complaints; and
• ensure that all relevant staff are aware of the need to provide a full response to complaints in line with the complaints handling procedure.