Local Government

Summary

The property where Mrs C lives was subject to a statutory repairs notice which meant that the council did the works by default and then recouped the cost (plus an administration fee) from the owners. Mrs C complained about the final costs of the works and said that the owners had not been kept informed or up to date about increasing costs.

We found that, upon starting work as required by the notice, the extent of damage caused by vegetation was greater than first considered (affecting the gable as well as the chimney stack of the property). While Mrs C was alerted to the fact that this would lead to an increase in costs, she was not given details of the costs incurred nor reasons why the council thought it was appropriate to continue with the works under the existing notice rather than issuing another. Accordingly, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mrs C with a full explanation for the reasons why further works (and associate costs) were required and why it was not considered necessary to issue a further statutory notice; and
• make a full formal apology for the failures in this matter and add weight to the apology by considering waiving the administrative costs associated with the works.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's handling of statutory repairs notices that had been served on their property. They complained that the council had failed to follow their own internal processes when awarding the contract for the statutory repairs, and to follow their procedures for checking that the work carried out was correctly invoiced. Mr and Mrs C said that the final account included items that had not been completed, unnecessary work, duplicate items and items not related to any statutory notice. Finally, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response to their complaint about the issue of an emergency notice.

During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had responded to Mr and Mrs C's concerns and had explained that they were satisfied that the tendering process was in line with approved procurement procedures. We also found that they had fully considered Mr and Mrs C's concerns about the final account. Having thoroughly investigated the works carried out, they were satisfied that the project was competitively tendered, the costs were reasonable and the statutory notices were issued appropriately.

Finally, we found that, based on the available evidence, the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations about the issue of a statutory notice. In particular, they had explained that the decision to issue this was based on the professional judgement of the surveyor at the time of issue in 2008.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the processing of a planning application. Mr C complained that the council had not considered all the relevant material considerations and had not conducted the Regulatory Planning Hearing in line with procedure.

We sought independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered all the relevant material considerations and listed these in the officer's report and discussed them at the planning hearing. Our adviser was also satisfied the planning hearing had been conducted in line with procedure. In light of the advice received, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's regulatory panel had granted planning consent for a radio mast in the garden of a neighbour despite having been given photographic evidence of the site which was out-of-date. Since the original photographs of the site were taken by planning officers a number of trees had been felled which Mr C said altered the screening of the site. Mr C was of the view that the council should have taken new photographs after the felling had taken place and should also have issued a new and updated report of handling to objectors to the development.

In responding to the complaint the council said that the regulatory panel was fully aware of the felling that had taken place as the son of the applicant had informed them of the changes. In addition, an objector had written to highlight the felling and Mr C himself had spoken at the panel hearing and highlighted this issue. The regulatory panel chose not to visit the site or require updated photographic evidence as they did not consider it necessary to determine the application.

We considered Mr C's complaint and found that the regulatory panel had been made fully aware of the felling which had taken place and had the opportunity to request further information. As they did not consider this was required, however, they determined the application. We also found that the council had no responsibility to issue a new and updated report of handling following the tree felling and that, even if they had, they would not be obliged to issue copies of this document to objectors. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way these matters were dealt with by the council, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's child went missing while using the school bus service. Mr C complained that his child was put at risk because the driver did not know which children were travelling on the bus that day and did not check when asked by Mr C's wife (Mrs C) to make sure that her child was not on the bus. Mr C complained to the council that the bus driver had not followed procedures. The council had investigated his complaint, and although they made recommendations to improve their school bus service, they found that the driver had followed the procedures in place at the time of the incident. Mr C said that he was not confident in his child using the bus service to and from school because he did not believe that the council had investigated the matter properly. He complained also that the council's recommendations had not been implemented, and he did not believe, therefore, that adequate controls had been put in place to ensure that a similar situation did not occur.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint had not been conducted in accordance with the council's complaints procedure, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, the council had told Mr C that as part of their investigation, they would interview him and this did not happen. The council told us that there had been sufficient information in a statement made by Mrs C at the time of the incident to uphold Mr C's complaint without further interview. The council had failed to make this clear to him and we made recommendations for an apology to be given to Mr C about this.

We understood Mr C's concern that there should not be a recurrence of what had clearly been a serious and distressing incident involving his child. Our investigation found that the council had not given Mr C and his wife sufficient advice about the changes being made, or provided him with clear and consistent advice about the progress and timescale of the implementation of the recommendations. However, we did not uphold the complaint because there was evidence of the changes which had been recommended in the council's findings having been implemented, and no further problems had been reported to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• formally apologise to Mr C and his wife for the failure in the decision letter issued to them to be more empathetic, and the failure to explain to them before, or in the decision letter the reason why it was not considered necessary to interview Mr C's family; and
• formally apologise to Mr C and his wife for not giving fuller advice, at the time of the decision, about implementation of the recommendations.

Summary

Ms C owns an end of terrace house that is joined to a council owned property. When the council carried out improvement works on the roof of their property they required access to it through Ms C's garden. Ms C complained that she had not been told in advance by the council that the works would be carried out. She also complained that the council's contractors had damaged her garden and her roof while carrying out the works, and that she had to pay for the damage.

The council said that Ms C was sent a letter in advance of the works. They offered to remedy the damage made to the garden, however said they were not liable for the damage to the roof.

During our investigation we found that the council did not have any evidence that Ms C was informed of the works in advance and so upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to address it in future. We noted that the council had offered to remedy the damage in the garden, however the contractor had then not done this. For this reason, we upheld the complaint and recommended that the works take place as soon as possible. We concluded that the council had caused some of the damage to Ms C's roof and had not taken steps to remedy it. We upheld this complaint and recommended they reimburse Ms C for the cost of the repairs.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider how to record neighbour notification of works;
• ensure remedial gardening works are carried out; and
• reimburse Ms C for the cost of the roof repairs.

Summary

Miss C said that a teacher dragged her child out of class by the neck, and she complained about this to the council. Miss C was unhappy with the council's response and she complained to us. We could not look at the alleged incident itself, as the SPSO Act 2002 says that we cannot investigate conduct or discipline in schools. We looked at the council's handling of Miss C's complaint.

We found that children, both in groups and as individuals, and school staff were asked about the alleged incident. In particular, the children were given an opportunity to speak to staff in confidence, or to leave an anonymous note. We were satisfied with the council's handling of the complaint and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not acted on two recommendations which were made by the complaints review committee, who hear complaints at the third and final stage of the council's complaint handling procedure for social work complaints. We found that the council had acted reasonably. Specifically there was evidence that the council had acted on the recommendation that they examine other facilities for the delivery of Mr C's son's support programme. Mr C said the council did not comply with a recommendation that future meetings should be recorded and agreed. The council explained that the purpose of the visit in question was to inspect and view the risks to Mr C's disabled son in his home environment. It was not a meeting as traditionally defined or at which decisions were made. We found the council's explanation to be rational and reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action when his neighbour built an extension without applying for planning permission. Under planning legislation, if an extension is to be no more than four metres in height, planning permission is not normally required. However, Mr C noticed that the extension his neighbour was building was more than four metres high and asked the council to take action on this. The council measured the extension as being 4.1 metres high, but decided not to ask for a planning application to be submitted.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council were entitled to reach the decision that, although the extension exceeded the permitted development threshold by 0.1 metres and was a breach of planning control, they would not pursue the matter further by requiring the submission of a revised planning application. We took the view that the council had acted reasonably in the circumstances, and did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate responses to his complaints. We found, however, that they had provided reasonable responses to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained that when assessing a planning application, the park authority failed to give priority to the primary aim of the park which is to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Mr C suggested that this application caused conflict amongst the aims of the park and, as a result, section 9 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2011 should be invoked. This requires that the primary aim of the park be given priority where conflict of the other aims exist.

The park authority explained that their planning policies take account of the park's aims. They explained that this development was assessed on its merits, and against the parks policies and local plan, and it was determined that the development could be granted consent and proceed without an unreasonable impact on the area.

We considered the park authority's review of this application and noted that they had demonstrated the relevant policies and procedures against which this development must be assessed. They explained their decision-making process and the reasons for recommending approval to the planning committee. They also provided details of the mitigation required through planning conditions. We found no evidence to suggest that this application was not appropriately considered against relevant planning policies and we found the park authority's view that Section 9 of the Act need not be invoked to be reasonable. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.