Local Government

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.

Summary

Due to health problems, Mr C finds it difficult to climb the stairs in his house. He applied to the council for adaptations to his home, but they declined this. His case was considered at a social work complaints review sub-committee (CRC) but, again, no adaptations were agreed. Mr C complained that the CRC was not carried out in line with the relevant procedure. Specifically, he complained that although he was only allowed to bring one representative to the CRC, the social work department had three representatives. He felt that this was unfair and complained that he was also denied the opportunity to ask questions of the staff involved in his request for adaptations.

We found that the CRC was conducted in line with the relevant guidance. That said, we felt that the council could have provided Mr C with details of the number of attendees in advance of the hearing to avoid surprises. We were also satisfied that Mr C was allowed to ask questions at the hearing. However, we were critical that there was a lack of records showing what questions were asked, who responded and what the response was.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that complainants are informed in advance about the number of staff who are normally present at CRCs; and
• share our comments about record-keeping with staff responsible for taking minutes of CRCs.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's decision to demolish a tenement building containing her three flats. She complained about the council's communication with her, and about the way they addressed the problems with the building.

After reviewing correspondence between Ms C and the council, we did not uphold either of her complaints. We found no evidence that the council's communication was inappropriate. We also found that the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 permits the council to carry out urgent work, such as demolition, to reduce or remove a danger. Although we understood that she felt that they should not have done so in this case, this was a discretionary decision for them to make. We cannot question the merits of discretionary decisions unless we find failings, which we did not find in this case.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained to us about the council's handling of repairs to her bathroom. She said there were delays in carrying out the repairs and that she had experienced poor communication with the council and contractors. She also said the contractors caused damage to her house while carrying out the repairs.

We asked Ms C for more information to help us investigate this. However, she then told us that she had paid private contractors to repair the damage and wanted to withdraw her complaints. In accordance with Ms C's wishes, we stopped investigating and closed our file.

Summary

After a tank in her loft burst, Ms C submitted a compensation claim to the council. They wrote to her with an offer of compensation, but said that she would not receive any money as it would be set against her council tax arrears. Ms C disputed the outstanding council tax, as she said that the council did not make her aware of it and she queried their right to offset the compensation against her council tax.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. The council provided clear evidence that council tax notices, reminders and warrant notices had been sent to Ms C each year, and there was evidence that they had phoned Ms C about her outstanding bill. Their procedure for compensation payments also said that they had the right to offset these against any outstanding debt, including council tax arrears. In addition the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 gave them the right to use information gathered under any other function in their council tax levying process.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council decided that some of his complaints were not eligible to be dealt with by the complaints review committee (CRC), which is the final stage of the council's social work complaints process. The council, by law, have a special process for dealing with complaints about social work services. The council said, and we agreed, that the particular complaints Mr C wanted the committee to look at were primarily educational rather than social work matters. The council had, at each stage of their complaints process, told Mr C that he should complain to the part of the council responsible for education, but we found that he had chosen to disregard this advice.

Mr C also complained about the role of a council legal adviser during the committee meeting. He said that the officer had gone beyond her remit by asking him a question which he felt was an attempt to discredit his evidence. We found that the legal adviser had not acted unreasonably in asking the question, and the committee chairperson told us the question was relevant and reasonable. However, we thought it would have been helpful for the council to explain the role of each participant in advance of the committee and we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider producing a short guidance note explaining the role and rights of participants. This could be shared in advance of a CRC or explained by the chair on the day of the hearing.

Summary

Ms C complained that, after an incident at her child’s school, she was not told that day that her child would be excluded from school the following day. The council said that written notification was provided on the day. This was given to the child to pass on to Ms C, but they did not do so.

Our investigation found, however, that the council failed to follow their own guidance which required them to notify a parent orally and in writing on the day a decision is taken to exclude a child. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the school apologise to Ms C for not advising her orally on the date of the incident that her child was not to return to school the following day; and
• ensure that staff in the school in question are aware of their obligation to advise parents/carers orally on the day they decide to exclude a young person and they are required to seek agreement from parents/carers if a young person is out on investigation.