Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to the council after they failed to pay him a decoration/disturbance allowance following works to upgrade the bathroom in his temporary accommodation. He believed that he was entitled to this as it was clearly stated in a letter sent to him by the council that this would be paid. This entitlement was also reiterated to him by a contractor who was carrying out a survey to his property prior to the commencement of works.

In their final response to Mr C, and in communications with us, the council made it clear that Mr C should never have been notified that an allowance was payable, as this is provided to cover the costs of redecoration after works and, as a temporary occupant, he is not responsible for the decoration of his accommodation. They apologised to him for this miscommunication and took steps to ensure that a similar mistake would not be made in future. We therefore found that the decision not to pay the allowance was reasonable and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

A gas inspection was carried out at Miss C's home via forced entry. Miss C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide her with appropriate notice about the gas inspection. However, the evidence available confirmed that three attempts were made to gain entry to Miss C's home and appropriate notification was given that a forced entry would occur. The council acted within their remit and followed the appropriate procedures.

Miss C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to her complaint. However, we found that the council responded appropriately to the main points of the complaint raised by Miss C. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Ms C's daughter has special needs and attended a special school where her behaviour meant she had to be restrained on a regular basis. In March 2014 her daughter was injured and severely bruised whilst being restrained. Ms C herself suggested a different type of restraint for use on her daughter. The school agreed to use this method of restraint and trained staff in this technique. However, Ms C then complained about the council using the original type of restraint and also about the council's subsequent investigation into her complaint.

We noted that the restraint technique used was an approved method of restraint suitable for situations such as this. We noted that the school did change the restraint technique to be used on Ms C's daughter to one which Ms C herself had requested, and they carried out training to ensure staff were fully trained on this new technique. We fully accepted, as had the school and council, that her daughter was injured during this restraint but, as trained staff used an approved restraint technique, in line with the school and council's policies, we did not find evidence of administrative failing in this case. We also noted the investigation carried out by the council into Ms C's complaint was reasonable and found no evidence of administrative failure in the way it was carried out. As a result, we did not uphold the complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the school takes steps to ensure that separate incident forms are completed by all staff who are involved in future incidents where force is used, as required by their Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (Restraint) Policy.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to repair defects with her windows. Mrs C had new windows fitted in late 2012. Since early 2013 she had reported problems with the windows. Each time she did, the council arranged for a joiner to visit and fix the window if necessary. There was no evidence that following those visits Mrs C had reported the fixes had not worked. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he asked Glasgow Life to provide him with a copy of their full complaints procedure, they failed to do so. He also thought that this policy should be available to all who complain. In addition, he complained that a statement in an email sent to him by Glasgow Life was inaccurate as it indicated that they had apologised to him in previous correspondence. He claimed they had never apologised to him.

We found that Mr C's email in which he requested a copy of the complaints procedure was ambiguous and could be interpreted in a number of ways. Considering that Glasgow Life had explained how Mr C could progress his complaint, that the full complaints procedure was available on their website, and that he could have asked them for a copy directly, we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

We also reviewed earlier correspondence between Glasgow Life and Mr C, and noted the empathetic content of their responses. They had apologised that they were unable to provide the facilities and services which Mr C wanted at certain times. As a result of this, we did not uphold his second point of complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A) who had been refused an application made to the council for a crisis grant. The reasons for the refusal were that she had already received a grant in the preceding 28 days and her circumstances had not changed. Miss A requested a review of this decision, which was unsuccessful. In the response letter no reasons were given for the decision. Miss A then requested a second stage review, which was also unsuccessful, and again no reasons were provided in the response. Mr C then complained to us about the lack of reasoning provided. He also felt that the decision to not award a second grant within 28 days was not in line with Scottish Government guidance.

After our enquiries to the council, they accepted that there had been errors in providing reasoning and, as a result, agreed to overturn their decision and pay Miss A the grant. They also agreed to implement new processes to ensure that future decision letters contained detailed reasoning. However, they maintained that their decision-making with regards to her repeat application had been correct. On consulting the Scottish Government guidance, we agreed that there had been failings with regards to the reasons provided but also that they had been correct in their assertion that a second grant should not be paid within 28 days. We believed that the actions they had already agreed to perform were reasonable and, as such, made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide his father, who was a resident in a sheltered housing complex, with a reduction in his rent as they indicated they would, in recognition of the additional disturbance caused to him by works being carried out at the sheltered housing complex. He was of the view that they failed to take appropriate steps to address the disturbance caused by these works and failed to deal appropriately, and within a reasonable time frame, with the request for rent reduction.

We found that the council had offered Mr C's father a decant to another property for the period of the major renovation works but he had refused this offer. They paid a disturbance allowance to all residents in recognition of the works, and arranged for new residents facilities and alternative eating arrangements when the lounge was closed and the in-house meals service was terminated. Following Mr C's complaint to the council, they also agreed to make a further payment for the additional level of disruption. We found that they had taken into account the disturbance caused to Mr C's father and made appropriate offers to recognise this. However, we also noted the council's suggestion that a waiver or reduction of Mr C's father's rent for this period was being seriously considered. We felt that the council's correspondence did not clearly highlight that this was a possibility and not a likelihood. In addition, it took the council almost seven months to reach a decision on this point, by which time, Mr C's father had died. As a result of the lack of clarity in their communication, and the significant delay in reaching their decision on the rent reduction, we upheld this aspect of the complaint and recommended that the council write to Mr C to apologise for the failings identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the lack of clarity in their consideration of the possibility of a rent reduction/abatement and for the significant delay in reaching a decision on additional disturbance payments.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to require her neighbour to submit a planning application to install roof lights (velux windows). She said that they had allowed her neighbour to install the roof lights on the basis that planning and listed building consents for this work had been granted in 1996 and were 'kept alive' because the building had been painted and works to the internal stairwell were carried out within five years of the consent being granted. The council took the view that as the consented works had started, the permissions should not lapse. Ms C was of the view that these permissions should have lapsed after five years and new applications submitted for any further works. She was also concerned that without the requirement to submit a new application, she had lost the right to make representations to the council.

We considered the background to the case and sought independent advice from our planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence to support the council's view that the building had been painted since 1996, and that this work did not form part of the original planning consent. We also found that the internal stairwell, where works appear to have taken place, also did not form part of the original planning permission. The only work which required planning permission, and which was granted in 1996, was the installation of the roof lights. However, as these roof lights were not installed until 2014, the original planning and listed building consents should have lapsed in 2001, five years after the original permission was granted.

We noted that the council had based their decision solely on information provided by the neighbour and failed to take any steps to verify what works had been carried out under the original permissions. We also noted that even when it should have become apparent that the original permissions had lapsed, they did not take steps to consider any form of enforcement action to have the roof lights approved. Furthermore, we noted that the council had failed to provide reasonable, or accurate, responses to Ms C's complaint. As we were satisfied that the original permissions had lapsed, in line with the time limits applied by planning law at the time, and as the council's subsequent justification for their decision making was very poor, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• carry out a full review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and give careful consideration to what action would now be appropriate in order to obtain the necessary consents for this development (both planning and listed building) within the terms of the relevant legislation;
• introduce appropriate procedures to ensure any similar cases, relating to historic applications, are assessed against the correct legal framework and provide training to staff to ensure they are familiar with this process;
• review how their planning department responds to stage 2 complaints in order to ensure that the factual basis of any decision is checked before the decision letter is issued; and
• apologise to Ms C in writing for providing her with inaccurate information in their response to her complaint and for failing to give proper consideration to the question of whether or not the installation of the windows required submission of a new planning application.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to properly consider a planning application to build a house next door to their property. They said that their objections had not been properly taken into account and that the council failed to implement the terms of the permission granted in a reasonable way. They said that their amenity and enjoyment of their home had been detrimentally affected. They alleged that their representations about this were not dealt with properly.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and we found that, in initially considering the planning application, the council had dealt with it both reasonably and appropriately; Mr and Mrs C's objections were taken into account and permission was granted subject to conditions. Thereafter, as works progressed, Mr and Mrs C brought the council's attention to the fact that not all the conditions were being complied with. The council decided to pursue a negotiated settlement with the developer (rather than to take enforcement action), which they were entitled to do. There was no evidence that Mr and Mrs C's representations were ignored although it was clear that they were not dealt with in the way that Mr and Mrs C would have preferred. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C was a planning applicant who had his application refused. Mr C complained about what he felt to be inexplicable and unjustifiable inconsistencies in the council's approach to planning policy. He was concerned that the council had taken a different approach to determining the planning application for the development, compared with their processing of other planning applications that he regarded to be very similar and within the same local plan area.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council demonstrated that they dealt properly with their assessment and determination of this particular planning application, in terms of procedure and in full accordance with their statutory duties and obligations.

In the absence of evidence of administrative failure, we did not uphold the complaint.