Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's communication with them in relation to their concerns about the release of personal information was unreasonable. They said that communication was vague, and failed to address their concerns and the specific points they had raised.

We found that there were errors in relation to information displayed on a section of the council's website. However, our investigation found that the council's communications with the couple about the matter had been clear and fully addressed their specific concerns. They had also previously apologised to Mr and Mrs C.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council rejected a new complaint following a complaints review panel. We found that the council had considered her complaint and had decided, as they were entitled to, that Mrs C was raising the same or similar points as had already been dealt with. In light of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had not followed appropriate and mandatory procedures when they approved a planning application, which removed a condition that local slate had to be used on a new visitor centre. When Ms C complained to the council her complaint was not upheld, but she said there had been bias towards the developer and appropriate checking of information was not carried out.

Our investigation considered all correspondence between Ms C and the council, the detailed planning reports and planning committee meetings, as well as planning legislation and local plans. We found that the council had followed appropriate procedures when they amended the condition and had reasonably considered the slate options for the visitor centre. Although strong differences of opinion were expressed, the final decision of the planning committee to use a different slate was one they were entitled to take.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live on a road that was closed following a landslide. They complained that this was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below their street, and felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. They also complained about the length of time taken by the council to reach a decision as to what to do with their road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C lives on a road that was closed following a landslide. He complained that the landslide was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below his street. Mr C felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. He also complained about the length of time the council took to decide what to do with the road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had to pay a service charge while he was in temporary accommodation. He also complained that the council did not process his medical assessment form in line with their procedure, and did not communicate properly with him about an offer of housing.

The council said that the service charge was in line with their policy and is for maintaining temporary accommodation, which has a higher turnover than the main housing stock. They said that they had responded to Mr C about his medical assessment application and explained how medical points are awarded. They also apologised for not being proactive in contacting him about his offer of accommodation.

As we found that the service charge was in line with the council's policy, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about this. The level of the charge is a discretionary decision for the council to make. However, we found that the council took longer than the four weeks specified in their policy to process his medical assessment application and did not let him know that there was a delay, so we upheld that complaint. We also found that they had failed to correctly categorise the property Mr C was offered, as empty (void) properties such as that one, which need work that will take more than 15 working days should be recorded as 'not offerable'. They had also allowed Mr C to accept the offer as 'subject to viewing' which contravened their void management procedure. In light of these findings, we also upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C with an apology for failing to process his medical assessment application in line with their procedure;
• revisit their policy on processing medical assessment forms and ensure that if they are unable to meet the four week deadline that they advise applicants of the delay;
• issue Mr C with an apology for failing to process his offer of accommodation in line with their procedure; and
• revisit their procedure on void management, and remind all staff that properties requiring works of more than 15 working days should be recorded as 'not offerable' and that properties cannot be accepted 'subject to viewing'.

Summary

Mr C complained about a staircase that his neighbour erected near their mutual property boundary. He said that the original plans showed a staircase at the other end of the building, to which he did not object. Mr C told us that he now feels that he has no privacy because, although there is a high wall between him and his neighbour, his neighbour was allowed to build above it.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who found no concerns about the original decision, or the decision to treat this change as a non-material variation to the plans. We explained to Mr C that planning authorities make decisions on a wide range of planning matters, and have the right to decide on all of these by exercising their discretion. Our role is to consider the council's handling of the matter. In this case we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure on the part of the council, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council did not meet her child's additional support needs at school. She was also unhappy about how they handled her complaint.

Our investigation found that while the school recognised that Mrs C's child had additional support needs and that support was provided, there had been a complete breakdown in the relationship between Mrs C and the school. Because of this, the issue of whether appropriate support was being provided was never going to be resolved. Mrs C had clearly lost confidence in the service and support provided by the school, and had a genuine belief that it was failing to meet her child's needs.

Mrs C, therefore, had a right to be made aware of the alternative dispute resolution provision available under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, where there is a complaint that a school is not meeting a pupil's additional support needs. This includes access to independent mediation and adjudication, and an appeal to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland. The council did eventually offer Mrs C access to mediation (which they should have offered sooner) but we found no evidence that they made her aware of her rights under the legislation as they should have done.

We also found that there were occasions when Mrs C's child went home from school during the day but these were not recorded as an exclusion from school as they should have been (in accordance with the council's school exclusion policy). Accounts of incidents at the school involving Mrs C's child were also not recorded at the time they occurred.

The council had acknowledged delay in responding to Mrs C’s complaint, for which they had apologised and advised her what they had done as a result of this. We were satisfied that they had taken appropriate action to address this part of the complaint. However, Mrs C had also raised concerns about her child being bullied. Given the seriousness of Mrs C's allegations, in particular that her child had been assaulted, we considered that the council had not carried out appropriate investigations to address the allegations of bullying.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mrs C for the failings identified;
• ensure that all relevant staff are made aware of the alternative dispute resolution avenue available for complaints about schools failing to meet additional support needs;
• ensure that all relevant staff are made aware of the council's Management of Exclusion on Schools policy and what constitutes an 'exclusion' from school; and
• ensure that all relevant staff are made aware of the requirement to complete incident report forms, where appropriate.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council did not follow their procedures when dealing with her concerns that her child was being bullied at school. She also complained about how the council dealt with her complaint.

The law describes the types of complaints we can and cannot look at, and what we can and cannot do about them. It says that we cannot look into conduct or discipline matters in schools, so we could not investigate the allegations of bullying or reach a view on whether Miss C was bullied. It is important to note that although Mrs C was certain her child was being bullied, the school did not agree. We looked into the school records and found that although Mrs C was not satisfied with the outcome, her concerns were taken seriously. In keeping with their procedures the school made reports of alleged bullying incidents, records of meetings they had with Mrs C, and action plans to support the child at school.

Mrs C also felt that the council's response to her complaint was factually inaccurate. We found, however, that it was an accurate reflection of the school's records, and their letter to Mrs C was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the council handled his concerns about nuisance and anti-social behaviour. He had complained about damage to common areas, noise nuisance and the keeping of chickens which he believed attracted vermin.

We found that the council followed their policy when Mr C reported neighbour nuisance and took reasonable steps to investigate and corroborate his complaints. They inspected the area where the chickens were kept and found it to be of a reasonable standard. They found no evidence of vermin and offered advice about signs of rodent activity to watch out for. They also offered to monitor noise by installing monitoring equipment, although Mr C declined this.

The council took reasonable steps to obtain witness evidence. We found that the evidence gathered did not substantiate Mr C's concerns and so the council had no grounds on which to act. Although they saw damage to a gate, there was no evidence to prove who was responsible for this. The council had advised Mr C's neighbour that the close was common to both properties and that they should respect this, and had offered mediation. We concluded that the council acted appropriately.