Local Government

Summary

Mrs C's son, who had previously been educated elsewhere, wished to enter sixth year at the local council-run secondary school. The council said they would not allow this as Mrs C's son was of an age where, according to their view of relevant law, her son was an adult. Mrs C complained about the council's decision, and about their handling of her complaint.

We looked at the council's response to Mrs C's complaint and although she disagreed with their position, which was based on their interpretation of relevant law, the council had consistently explained to her that her son was considered to be an adult and, therefore, there was no duty on them to provide him with a place at the school. It was not our role to resolve differing interpretations of the law, or to interpret it ourselves. Therefore, we would not give a view on the correctness, or otherwise, in law of the council's position. We could not uphold Mrs C's complaint just because she disagreed with the council.

In terms of the council's administration of the complaint, we found they should have explained to Mrs C earlier what stage her complaint was at, and they should have proactively provided her with updates. This would have helped Mrs C know when to expect a reply from the council. In addition, the same council officer made the decision not to allow Mrs C's son to enrol in the school, and dealt with Mrs C's complaint at both stages of the complaints process. This was inappropriate, and the council accepted this and had a different officer review the complaint. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff responding to enquiries and complaints not to refer to procedures where no such procedures exist;
• remind relevant secondary school staff of the council's position on dealing with applications from adults wishing to return to secondary school;
• apologise for their failure to explain to Mrs C early in the process at what stage her complaint was being dealt with, and their failure to proactively update her on progress;
• remind their complaints handlers to explain to complainants early in the process what stage their complaint is at, and the relevant timescales that apply; and
• remind their complaints handlers that staff who were involved in the matter complained about, or involved at a previous stage of the complaints process, should not respond to (later stage) complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that for the four years her son (Mr A) had been a pupil at a school within the council area, no assessment was made of what extra support he required, and teachers did not provide supportive evidence. This was despite her requests that her son was assessed to determine what extra support needs he had. She said that after Mr A left the school, he began to attend a local further education college where he was given a full psychological assessment. The associated report confirmed that Mr A had signs of dyslexia. Mrs C believed that as a consequence of the school's actions, Mr A did not perform as well as he could have in his exams. She said that his self confidence had been detrimentally affected.

Our investigation found that throughout Mr A's school career, whenever Mrs C had asked for his support to be considered, her request was reviewed in terms of the council's policy and, where necessary, appropriate support was provided. Mr A was given the means by which he could perform to his best ability and he performed as had been predicted (and on occasion better) in an independent assessment all pupils had been given. Furthermore, although Mrs C requested special adjustments for Mr A during his exams, his teachers' views had been obtained and assessed and the Scottish Qualifications Authority consulted and it was determined, on this basis, that he did not require extra support. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is an independent advocate, complained to the council on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that their children's school had not addressed their children's support needs, not protected their well-being, treated them unfairly, and that Mr and Mrs A's complaints to the school were not dealt with appropriately.

We reviewed the correspondence between Ms C and the council, their complaints handling procedures and the evidence considered in the council's investigation. We found that there was unreasonable delay in the handling of the complaint as it was not promptly allocated to the investigating officer and, although they apologised for the delay, the council did not explain their error. The investigation, once underway, was thorough and there was no clear evidence to support the views of the parents. As the council had taken steps to address the allocation of complaints and recognised what they needed to put in place to rebuild trust between the parents and the school, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's home was regularly affected by flooding. Mr C complained that this was due to an inadequate road drainage system. He said that the council had accepted this, but although they had committed in 2012 to resolve the problem, no work had been carried out. The council said they had been actively seeking a solution to the problem since 2013 following a formal complaint from Mr C. They required access to privately owned land and negotiating this had proved complicated. They accepted matters had taken longer than they would have wished, but felt they had acted reasonably and that the delays were due to matters outside their control.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found the council had made a written commitment to resolve the problem in 2012. The evidence showed that they had not, however, pursued this solution until Mr C had formally complained and contacted us about their lack of response. We found the delay in starting work on the project was excessive and was due in part to failures by the council. We also found that the council adopted a contradictory position by accepting responsibility in 2012, before suggesting, when Mr C complained in 2013, that he was responsible for managing flood risk. This also contributed to the delay in commencing work to mitigate the flood risk to his home.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings that our investigation identified;
• update Mr C and us on the progress being made against the timetable for completion of the project; and
• provide Mr C and us with a clear timetable for completion of the project.

Summary

Mr C complained about the closure of his local library and re-development of the building. He said that the council had not done what they said they would do; that they had provided inaccurate information on an external funding application; and that they did not deal reasonably with his subsequent complaints.

Our investigation found that the council had undertaken community consultation and consideration of the various options for the re-development as they had said they would. Mr C did not agree with the option chosen, but this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. On the funding application, we found that some of the information Mr C described as inaccurate was subjective, but that this did not necessarily make it inaccurate. Other comments were contained within internal documentation which, although relevant to the application, did not actually form part of the submitted application.

We also found that, although there was an initial delay in passing the complaint to the relevant department, overall the council complied with their complaints procedure and provided Mr C with comprehensive information in response to his concerns. Mr C did not agree with the council's viewpoint on certain issues, but this was not the same as failing to deal with these issues.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for four wind turbines near his home. He told us the council failed to respond to his letters before the case went to planning committee. We found that the council had replied reasonably and within a suitable timescale to Mr C's letters which postdated the committee meetings. We told Mr C that the council's obligation was to consider any material objection made to the application and that they were not obliged to respond to ongoing correspondence other than, as in this case, via the complaints handling procedure.

We found that the council had followed the usual and agreed decision-making process. The case was heard by a planning committee which recommended planning approval be delegated to a senior planning officer. We found no evidence, as Mr C believed, that the council had extended its usual 28 day representations period to 90 days. We found evidence that Mr C's objections were properly taken account of within the decision-making process.

Summary

Mrs C complained about an unauthorised development immediately adjacent to her home. She said that in June 2013 work began in the field next to her house and it quickly became apparent that this was to develop a caravan site. A planning application was submitted for part of the site. In September 2013, the council issued a temporary stop notice with regard to the works and also obtained an interim interdict from the sheriff (a temporary court order stopping a particular course of action). Court proceedings began after the interdict was breached and a planning enforcement notice was issued. Thereafter, another planning application was made for the remainder of the site (for which no application had been made).

No appeal was made against the council's enforcement notice which, therefore, took effect in December 2013. The compliance date expired in January 2014 without any action being taken against the developer. Then, in April 2014, both planning applications were withdrawn. Court proceedings against the alleged operator were dismissed in August 2014 and, the following month, two new planning applications were made for the site which were subsequently deemed to be invalid.

Mrs C complained that although the opportunity existed for the council to take action and clear the site, they failed unreasonably to do so. As a consequence of the unauthorised works that have taken place, she said that her house and business have been detrimentally affected and her home is at risk from flooding.

The council said that they took such breaches of planning control very seriously but that the situation next to her home was not straightforward; once the notice had expired which allowed time to appeal or comply, the only action remaining to the council was to remove the caravans and associated buildings by direct action. The council said they were considering this and developing a formal strategy to address the unauthorised development which they hoped would be in place by June 2014.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and we found that there was uncertainty of timing of action regarding ongoing court action and the planning applications. There was also uncertainty over the need to obtain powers over the entire site before taking direct action which required professional judgement on the part of planning officers. Up until spring 2014, all of the measures taken by the council to remedy the breach were reasonable and part of the suite of statutory planning enforcement instruments available under planning legislation. Similarly, it was reasonable for the council to await outcomes of planning applications and court action at the same time as formulating a strategy of action. However, although the council had spoken about a plan of action, they had, in fact, made very little meaningful progress towards it and towards an effective remedy for the breach of planning control. Little was done to expedite action and there was little assessment of the available options. Throughout this time, Mrs C was left with a large and unauthorised development next to her house, so we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a full apology for the delay in pursuing a plan to deal with the unauthorised development and for the distress and inconvenience suffered; and
• ensure that relevant planning officers review the circumstances of this complaint to see where opportunities were lost to progress matters and to develop an action plan to avoid them in the future. They should inform us of the plan they agree.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A was unhappy with the way the council dealt with his concerns about asbestos in his home, about them blocking access to an electrical socket when they altered his ceiling and about the way they handled his complaint.

Our investigation considered whether the council acted in line with legislation and their own policy when dealing with the asbestos. We found that they did and that they responded reasonably to every one of Mr A's requests to have the asbestos tested. We did not uphold this complaint.

We also considered whether Mr A was treated reasonably in relation to the problem with the blocked socket. We found that by arranging for the socket to be repositioned, then adhering to Mr A's wishes for the work to stop, and then reinitiating the work again when Mr A requested it again, the council acted reasonably. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, our investigation considered whether the council implemented their complaints procedure reasonably when handling his complaint. We found that the council took three times longer than they should have to provide their final response, did not update him throughout this time, failed to agree longer timescales and there were errors in the response given. We upheld Mr A's complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a further apology for the complaints handling failings identified; and
• provide a copy of our decision to the member of staff who responded to this complaint on behalf of the council.

Summary

Mr C had complained over a number of years to the council about problems of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He was dissatisfied with the council's handling of his complaints about noise nuisance, and said that they had been hesitant to take action within the powers at their disposal. He also complained that the council had withdrawn their service from him on this, and as a result he had suffered three weeks of anti-social behaviour with no service. He also complained of delay in the handling of his complaint.

We found that the council had stopped the call-out service by officers, who had visited in response to complaints from Mr C of noise nuisance, because there had been counter-complaints about Mr C's behaviour. However, we found no evidence that the council had not continued to deal with his complaint, including making arrangements for sound monitoring equipment to be installed in his home. We found nothing wrong with the thoroughness of the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint. The council recognised there was delay in replying to Mr C, so we upheld his complaint about this, but as they had already apologised, which we considered satisfactory, we did not make a recommendation.

Summary

Ms C told us that other houses in a similar or better condition than her own were included by the council on a programme of works and were re-rendered and insulated. She complained that her home was not included in this programme of works and was not upgraded. She told us her home was non-standard construction and was very hard to heat.

The council said the purpose of the improvement programme was to make sure that their housing stock met the Scottish Housing Quality Standard (SHQS). They instructed a surveyor to carry out a visual inspection of all housing stock so they could identify properties which might fail to meet the SHQS. The surveyor found that Ms C's property was not one of those which failed to meet the standard. It was not, therefore, included in the programme of works.

When Ms C raised concerns about the outcome of the survey a member of the council's capital investment team, who were responsible for the upgrade programme, inspected Ms C's property again and reached the same conclusion, that the property needed a few repairs but did not fail the SHQS.