Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's son was not allocated a place at their first choice of nursery, and they couple complained that the council did not follow their policy in terms of deadlines for applications and allocation meeting dates when places were allocated. The council investigated Mr and Mrs C's complaint, and advised that they had exhausted the appeals process as laid out in the nursery education admission policy and both stages of the council's complaints procedure.

Mr C then brought his complaint to us. We reviewed the correspondence between him and the council, as well as council policies on the allocation of nursery places and complaints handling, and considered the management of waiting lists and the introduction of new policy. We found that the council had operated allocations and nursery place waiting lists in line with policy and, responding to parental feedback, had taken steps to anticipate changes being introduced in their new policy. We found that Mr C's son was not disadvantaged by the council's actions. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we found that the council's responses to it were sometimes confusing and contradictory, and so we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the lack of clarity in their responses to Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C, a tenant of the council, complained about difficulties arranging repairs to her home. Mrs C said there were delays in carrying out several repairs, and the council failed to return her calls or communicate with her, except when she made formal complaints. Mrs C was also concerned that her energy costs for the year were very high, which she thought could be due to the delays in repairs to windows and doors, or to a fault in her boiler (which was not inspected by the council for two months after she reported it).

The council accepted that their communication was poor, and apologised to Mrs C for this. However, the council said that the energy costs could not have been affected by the faulty boiler, as this would have used less, not more, electricity.

After investigating these issues, we upheld Mrs C's complaints. There was no evidence that the faulty boiler increased Mrs C's energy costs and, while the delays in repairing the doors and windows might have affected her heating costs, it was not possible to determine this for certain. However, we found that there was unreasonable delay in the council inspecting Mrs C's faulty boiler, as well as in carrying out several repairs to her house. We also found that the council did not respond reasonably to Mrs C's attempts to contact them, except when she made formal complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider inspecting boiler and heating systems (to ensure they are functioning properly, in addition to electrical safety) as part of the preparation of a void property for a new tenancy;
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings our investigation found;
• review their processes to ensure that repair requests are promptly recorded and carried out, including where requests are made verbally, or as a result of a property visit; and
• take steps to ensure there is a robust process for logging and following up calls relating to housing repairs.

Summary

Ms C applied to the council on behalf of her son for a Young Scot card and education maintenance allowance. There were delays in processing her applications and because of that, Ms C complained to the council. She then complained to us because she said the council failed to address her complaint appropriately.

Having reviewed the council's complaint file and related documents, we found that the council could have taken steps to outline what the relevant procedures and likely timescales were in relation to each application. We also considered that they could have explained in more detail what had happened to the Young Scot card application. In addition, the council failed to address Ms C's concerns about her application for education maintenance allowance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a time and trouble payment in recognition of the failings identified with the handling of the application for a Young Scot card; and
• apologise for failing to address Ms C's complaint about the handling of the application for education maintenance allowance.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was charged late payment fees for failing to renew his landlord registration in time. He said that he had been unable to access his account to renew online and had made efforts to pay in person at the council's offices. However, the council were unable to accept payment as he had not completed the application form. Mr C eventually completed a paper application but by then his registration had already expired and late payment fees automatically applied.

We found that the council sent Mr C three reminders before his registration expired, which they were required to do under their landlord registration procedure. These explained how he could renew online and provided a phone number for him to contact should he need a paper application. However, Mr C did not contact this number until after his registration expired. While he had made efforts to pay the associated fee, an application was required so that appropriate declarations could be made before an invoice could be generated and payment accepted.

Mr C also complained that he was misinformed by staff when he attended the council's offices to try to pay, but we could find no evidence to support this. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Some years ago, Mr C received a lifetime ban from council facilities. He complained to us that this was unfair, and that the council had a duty to provide him with access to such facilities.

We upheld his first complaint, as our investigation found that the council should have offered Mr C a date when the ban would be reviewed. We noted that the council had agreed to meet Mr C to review the ban and that they had noted the gap in their policy, and were also reviewing this. However, we saw no evidence to suggest that the council had a duty to provide Mr C with access to leisure facilities, and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with a copy of the updated policy, considering the failings identified; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C reported that the council stopped his refuse collection. He said that he was later informed that a neighbour had denied the council refuse vehicles access to the private road running past his home. The council then made new arrangements for refuse collection via a concrete plinth at the end of the private road. Mr C was unhappy that his service had been changed and he told us that he had not been told the reason for the change or given any kind of notice. Mr C was also unhappy as it had taken the council approximately six weeks to organise a new collection location. In addition Mr C felt that the council had not communicated effectively with him and in particular had not adhered to his request to only be contacted in writing.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had unreasonably delayed organising a new collection point, but we did not make any recommendations as the council had already offered an apology within their final response.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had not informed him of a change of service prior to it taking place. This was because the council provided evidence that they had met with Mr C at his home prior to the change to tell him that his refuse collection would be disrupted. Soon after they told Mr C that the reason for this was that a neighbour had denied access to the private road. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's communication with him. Although there was matters of communication that could have been managed more effectively by the council, they did keep Mr C informed about the refuse situation.

Finally, we found that Mr C's request for the identity of the neighbour who had denied access to the private road was dealt with as a Freedom of Information issue and the council communicated effectively about the progress of this request. We explained to Mr C that he should direct any dissatisfaction he had with the outcome of that request to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow proper planning procedures in allowing a developer to alter their masterplan (a plan that describes and maps an overall development concept, including present and future land use) after public consultation had been carried out. Mr C said that this had resulted in his land being included in the masterplan without his involvement. Mr C said that the council had approved the altered masterplan, which had placed him at risk of significant financial loss. He noted that a subsequent planning application he had made had been rejected, on the grounds that his land was not approved for residential development under the masterplan.

The council said that their role was not to inform landowners of the provisions of the masterplan and that the onus was on the developer to show they had engaged with stakeholders. In this instance, the developer had provided evidence that they had contacted Mr C, but he had not responded. The council believed it was appropriate for them to have considered and approved the amended masterplan at the relevant committee meeting, which took place after the public consultation stage.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the masterplan process placed no obligations on the council to notify stakeholders who might be affected. He also said that the expectation under the masterplan process was that landowners who believed their interests might be affected would engage with the developer. He noted that the masterplan did not give the developer planning permission to carry out work, which required a separate, formal planning application. He said in his view the council had acted reasonably. In light of this, we found no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in their handling of the masterplan process.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council advisory service did not have permission to work with his children. Mr C thought that the service had a duty to validate information provided by potential service users before offering a support service. Mr C told us that the council failed to reply to two letters he wrote to them.

We found no evidence that the service had a duty to work in the way that Mr C would have preferred. Mr C did not dispute that his former partner had given consent and we found that this consent was sufficient to allow the council to provide a service to the children.

The council acknowledged that they had not answered two letters sent directly to the service as they should have done. They told us that steps had been taken to ensure that this would not happen again and had apologised to Mr C.

When it was originally published in February 2015, this case was wrongly categorised as 'not upheld'.  The correct category is 'some upheld'.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about her dissatisfaction with the council's investigation into her complaints about bullying of her children at their former school. She said that the school had failed to make her aware of their anti-bullying policy; had not contacted her when one of her children was hit during a playground incident; failed to properly manage bullying against another of her children; and that the head teacher had not tried to speak with Mrs C's husband when he notified the school that the children would not be returning. Mrs C told us that the head teacher's own investigation had contained glaring inaccuracies, but the council had not upheld her complaints.

Our investigation found that Mrs C had been made aware that the school had an anti-bullying policy, as it was summarised in the handbook that she would have received when her children were enrolled. We did not uphold that complaint, although we made a recommendation. We also did not uphold the complaint about the council's investigation of Mrs C's complaint about the head teacher. They had found that the head teacher dealt appropriately with the matter, and we agreed that this was something for the council to decide.

We did, however, uphold her complaints about the investigation into lack of communication and failure to manage bullying. On communication, we found that the investigation was flawed, as the council's files showed that they initially found fault with the school's handling of the playground incident, but then changed their decision and did not uphold the complaint. We found no evidence of new or further information having been provided before the decision was changed, and we took the view that the investigation relied too heavily on interviews, and did not seek to verify the facts with evidence. On bullying, we found that the council's investigation placed too much reliance on the head teacher's assurances that the school had properly managed the bullying. Again, the investigation had not tried to verify this as they should have done by checking the school records etc.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reinforce with the school the need to ensure that both the council's and the school's own policy on anti-bullying are being complied with;
• apologise to Mrs C for the council's failure to investigate her complaint about this issue properly and fully, and the failure of the school to notify her when the incident occurred;
• consider how best to ensure in the light of our findings that the process for investigation into reports of bullying is clearly set out, including parental involvement, and full records are kept of the investigation and its outcomes;
• apologise to Mrs C for the council's failure to investigate her complaint about the bullying of her child not being managed properly and fully by the school; and
• remind staff of the importance of considering records and evidencing decision-making at Stage 2 of the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C lived in a council property between July 2011 and March 2014 during which time he suffered a number of incidences of water penetration which appeared to come from the property above. He said that, as a consequence, his personal property had been damaged and that the house was not wind and watertight. He wanted to be rehoused. He complained that it was not until February 2014, when the problem was confirmed to be a systemic one probably related to the installation of cavity wall insulation a number of years previously, that he was offered permanent rehousing.

Our investigation showed that while there were a number of incidences of water penetration, on each occasion and within a reasonable time, the council had attended to complete remedial works. It was also shown that the problems at Mr C's house were not necessarily related to weather conditions and that the council had investigated potential areas of concern in an attempt to eliminate the problem. There were also difficulties with access, in particular to the neighbouring property where it was thought the problem was originating. A subsequent architect's report indicated that the cause of the problem was likely to be systemic and, therefore, Mr C was rehoused. We did not uphold the complaint.