Local Government

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.

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.