Local Government

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.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's handling of repairs to the communal roof of her building. She had made complaints over a number of years about the problem of water penetration of the roof. Miss C said that previous roof repairs had not been successful and further repairs carried out in March 2014 were the subject of her complaint.

Miss C said that despite the March 2014 repairs being carried out, the roof was still leaking, and that this was having a detrimental effect on her family's health. The council accepted that there had been occasions when the work could have been arranged in a more efficient manner and as a consequence avoided some of the delays that were experienced. However, they explained that, as they use the services of an external scaffolding contractor, this can be a time consuming process.

The council carried out a further inspection in November 2014 and further work was carried out. The council indicated that they were satisfied that the roof was watertight. We were satisfied that the council's response to the complaints of water ingress was reasonable and, accordingly, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C and her partner had complained to the council about alleged anti-social behaviour by one of their neighbours. Miss C complained about the way her complaints were handled by the council and, in particular, that the council had failed to follow their policies and procedures in dealing with the complaints made about her neighbour.

Our investigation found that Miss C and her partner had first raised their concerns about their neighbour during 2011 and that the council contacted them at that time detailing the action taken by them. In line with the council's anti-social behaviour procedure, this included mediation. Miss C and her partner continued to report incidents to the council during 2012 and 2013, and the evidence showed that the council contacted them and provided advice. However, it was clear that, in some instances, Miss C and her partner were not contacted until some time after the incident was reported. There was also a lack of records detailing the action recorded as being taken by the council.

The council explained that, in this case, they had received complaints from Miss C and her partner, but also counter-complaints from their neighbour. The council confirmed that there was no evidence of anti-social behaviour which would justify intervention by them against Miss C's neighbour. They suggested, and continued to suggest, mediation to try to resolve the problems.

While we found that there were shortcomings in the council's handling of the matter in relation to record-keeping we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council took action on the incidents reported and provided appropriate advice. In these circumstances we did not uphold the complaint, but we did make a recommendation about record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the importance of keeping comprehensive records of the action taken during the investigation of a complaint about alleged anti-social behaviour.

Summary

Mrs C complained about a mental health assessment of her late son, which was conducted by a mental health officer (MHO) employed by the council.

When we investigated Mrs C's complaint, we found that, although the MHO was employed by the council, at the time of the events, they acted as part of an NHS community mental health team. The council and NHS board agreed that, in this case, the NHS was responsible for the actions subject to the complaint, and we closed the complaint about the council and considered the NHS board's involvement as a separate case.

Summary

Mr C complained that his child had been bullied at school and that the response from the school and the council had been inadequate and inappropriate. Mr C said they had regularly reported incidents of bullying to the school but these had not been properly recorded. When they complained to the headteacher, Mr C said that their concerns were dismissed, and a subsequent investigation by the council's head of education had contained significant factual errors, which the council had failed to acknowledge or apologise for.

The council maintained there was no evidence that bullying had taken place. They said Mr C had insisted on the exclusion of the pupils he considered responsible for bullying and that he was not prepared to accept any other outcome. They acknowledged there had been errors in the head of education's investigation, but suggested that the conclusions this investigation had reached remained sound.

Our investigation found that the council were unable to supply adequate or accurate records. The investigation findings and complaint response from the council were not supported by the evidence available. The council also could not explain why statements had been made about what Mr C had insisted on as a resolution (exclusion of pupils) when these were not backed up by documentary evidence. It was noted, however, that the flaws in the investigation were due to a failure to follow the council's relevant policies and procedures (bullying and complaints handling) rather than evidence of systemic failings within the council's policies and procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence that staff at the school have been reminded of the importance of adhering to the appropriate guidance when investigating allegations of bullying;
• provide evidence that the bullying prevention assessment tool has been completed for the school in question; and
• apologise unreservedly to Mr C and his family for the failures identified in this investigation.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council had failed to take reasonable action in response to their concerns about flooding at properties that belonged to their son and daughter. They said that the council had failed to meet their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.

The council had assessed the risk of flooding in the relevant area and had issued two options to property owners to resolve the matter. They considered that one of these would cost more than the other and told residents that if that option was chosen, they would require the properties benefitting from this work to come to an agreement to share the additional cost beyond the cost of the cheaper option. The residents failed to reach an agreement and, consequently, no work was carried out.

The council have discretion in relation to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Under our legislation, we can check that a council has followed the correct process. However, if the decision was made properly, we cannot question or change it. We found that the council had delayed in dealing with some of Mr and Mrs C's correspondence. Although we said that these delays were unacceptable, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this and had taken steps to try to prevent problems of a similar nature occurring. The council had also tried to resolve the matter by presenting two options to residents and we found that this was reasonable. We considered that the council had acted reasonably in relation to their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for work carried out that was not in the statutory notice (where the council arrange for work to be done and then recoup the cost from the property owners) that they had issued to him and his neighbours. The statutory notice referred to the repair of defective stair treads. However, the contractors appointed by the council to carry out the works resurfaced the whole stairwell and landing. The council then billed Mr C and his neighbours for this. Mr C had raised this with the council when the contractors arrived to carry out the work, but the council failed to respond to him at that time.

We found that the council should have informed property owners of the additional flooring work exceeding the work referred to in the statutory notice. We said that the council should only charge Mr C for the work carried out under the statutory notice, particularly as he had raised the matter with the council on the day that the contractors arrived, but had not received a response. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints. There had initially been significant delays by the council in responding to Mr C's complaint. The council had then carried out a review, but this only considered Mr C's complaint about the quality of the work by the contractors. The council failed to consider Mr C's complaint about the additional work that was carried out that was not in the statutory notice. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• amend Mr C's outstanding bill so that he is only charged for the cost of repairing twelve defective stair treads, rather than the resurfacing of the landings and the whole stairwell;
• issue a written apology to him for the failure to adequately deal with his complaints; and
• make the staff involved in the handling of his complaint aware of our decision on the matter.