Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed proper planning procedures when they approved the building of a house on a site near her property. Mrs C said that proper consultation had not taken place and that the objections she and others raised at planning committee were not reasonably considered. She also complained that the decision was not in line with the development plan for the area, and that this was not adequately explained and recorded by the council.

Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and their responses to her complaints. We also examined relevant planning regulations, policies and development plans, and the papers presented to the committee that approved the planning application, including the planning officer's report and the minutes of the committee meeting. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about lack of community involvement and consultation, but we did uphold her complaint that the council did not properly follow procedure. We found that the planning application approval was not accurately documented as a departure from policy, as required by regulations, and we made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not clearly recording the approval as a departure from policy; and
• consider how best to ensure such exceptional planning approval decisions are accurately documented.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had installed a new culvert (a tunnel carrying a stream or open drain) under the road above his property. The culvert drained directly onto his land, and he said that it had eroded his driveway and caused problems with water run-off around his house. Mr C said that he was there when workmen constructed the culvert, and there had been no management presence on site. He had contacted the council at the first available opportunity, but was told that although the location of the culvert was detrimental to his property, the council had no option but to locate it there. Mr C said he was also told that the culvert replaced an existing culvert which had collapsed, and as it was not considered a new culvert, the council had no obligation to tell him about it.

Mr C complained and was told that the council's primary obligation was to ensure the road was safe by preventing surface water collecting on it. The council said that the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 gave them the necessary authority for their actions. They recognised that the culvert had a detrimental impact on Mr C's property and offered to pay half the cost of additional drainage to reduce its impact.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. We found that the logical conclusion of the council's position was that they were entitled to install drainage, regardless of the impact this had on an individual's property. Although it was reasonable for them to take action to provide drainage, our investigation found that they could not provide evidence to prove that a culvert had previously been there. We also found no evidence that they tried to identify or contact Mr C, even though it was apparent his house would be directly impacted. Because of this, we found that the council had acted unreasonably, as they had not given him the opportunity to discuss this before putting the culvert in place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• meet the cost in full of providing adequate drainage from the culvert to the burn at the edge of the property affected;
• review their roads drainage policy, to ensure that affected owners and occupiers are identified and appropriately consulted before works commence;
• provide evidence that they are compiling an asset register of all culverts; and
• apologise for the failings identified by our investigation.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the social care provided to her late husband (Mr A) in the last days of his life. Mr A had been discharged home from hospital into the care of his GP and the district nursing service, with the support of social care officers. It was known that he was dying and there had been a meeting to discuss the support he would need at home. It was considered that Mr A should be nursed and cared for in a hospital bed. Mr and Mrs A did not want this and he was cared for in his own bed. However, there were practical difficulties with this, which compromised the support given to Mr A by council care officers. Mrs A was distressed that during the last days of her husband's life he was not afforded the dignity and respect he required and deserved.

We investigated the complaint and found that the council had acknowledged their role in the poor care provided to Mr A. Staff had not been able to manage Mr A physically because of difficulties presented by the absence of a hospital bed. They had, however, not told managers of their concerns about Mr A's care being compromised as a result of this. This was explained to Mrs A when she complained, and the council had apologised unreservedly and told her Mrs A what they had done to try to avoid this happening to someone else.

It was not in dispute that the council failed to provide Mr and Mrs A with the level of support they could have expected, so we upheld the complaint. However, the investigation also showed that the procedures the council had since put in place went far in attempting to prevent a similar situation happening. Mrs A had also received a sincere apology, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council did not do enough to sort out dampness in her former home, where she was their tenant. She said that it caused mould and that items of personal property were ruined because of this. She told us that she repeatedly reported dampness, but the situation did not improve and she eventually gave up her tenancy because of the problems.

Our investigation found that the council had carried out work on the property when she first raised her concerns. They then arranged a survey, which showed a problem with condensation rather than dampness. As a result of this, they carried out more work. Although there was a delay in some of this being completed satisfactorily, the council had apologised and had taken action to complete it. Ms C disagreed that the problems related to condensation and had continuing concerns. The council carried out a further inspection and ordered other work to be done. However, Ms C left the property before this could happen. We did not uphold her complaint as, although she disagreed about the cause of the problem, we found that the council acted reasonably in trying to identify and address it.

Summary

Mr C had written to the council to ask if a condition of planning approval had been purified (agreed to have been discharged) by their planning department. Under the council's planning enforcement charter he was entitled to a formal response within ten working days, but he did not receive this. When he wrote again this email was also ignored. Mr C then complained to the council and received their final response which signposted him to us. He then complained that the council did not respond in good time to his concerns about a possible breach of planning control at a neighbouring property.

The council told us that they did not send a formal response as Mr C had met one of their officers at a council office (although Mr C said that this was while on other business). We decided, however, that they should have formally responded to his enquiry, in line with their charter. We upheld his complaint and were also critical of the council's complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation;
• remind staff that the model complaints handling procedure from our Complaints Standards Authority requires them to clearly communicate the outcome of an investigation to the customer; and
• demonstrate to us that action has been taken to resolve the discrepancy between the response time stated in the charter and the one stated in their automated acknowledgement email.

Summary

Mrs C claimed compensation from the council because she said there was damage to her home when a new central heating system was installed. Her claim was rejected, and she complained that the work was not carried out competently and was five months late. She said she had to redecorate extensively and replace floor coverings as a result of the installation. Mrs C also said that she was left without heating and hot water when the new system broke down shortly after installation.

Our investigation found no evidence of a five month delay, although there was information confirming that Mrs C was alerted to the start of the works and that she had been advised not to re-decorate. The replacement heating system was installed over a four-day period but the boiler was found to be faulty. As it was under guarantee the contractors reported this to the manufacturer for attention and, meanwhile, Mrs C was offered the use of heaters. Uneven floor boards and other general repairs that Mrs C reported were carried out. Otherwise, there was no evidence that the works carried out at her home were more disruptive than could have been anticipated.

Summary

Planning consent granted in 2002 required a developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in the area, and at first residents were given free parking permits. When, some ten years later, the council then started to charge residents for their permits, Mr C complained. He said that before the CPZ began to operate residents were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits as a result of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic resulting from the development. The council explained that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered a ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free as the costs associated with the CPZ were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from residents.

There was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely. However, we found no evidence of such a promise having been made. The available evidence indicated that the council's primary concern during the planning process was to secure funding for the new CPZ through a legal agreement with the developer. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who considered that it would have been inappropriate to attach a longer timescale than ten years to the agreement, and so we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to seek to recover costs after the ten year period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ and was publicised at the time included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges if necessary in the future. Mr C also raised concerns about the method the council used to introduce the charges. However, we found that his dispute with them about this was based upon a legal interpretation on which we could not comment.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council's environmental health department about an out-of-date food product he had bought in a supermarket. He was unhappy with the way the council handled this, and complained to us of delay and failure to deal with his complaint properly and fully.

Our investigation found that there had been an initial delay, and the council had not responded within two working days - the timescale required under their complaints handling procedure. However, in their investigation the council acknowledged this and had already apologised to Mr C for it. We found that their investigation into the food safety issue was thorough and followed council procedures and relevant legislation, and that they had sent Mr C a detailed decision letter. Overall, we did not find evidence of unreasonable delay. Our investigation did, however, find that they had not responded fully to Mr C's further representations, including that they notified the supermarket of their decision before telling Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer a formal apology to Mr C for failing to address all of his points fully; and
• review their practices on the timing of informing parties of the decision taken by the council with regard to complaints about food safety issues.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed their tendering process when undertaking a public works project. She said that work had been given to another person which should have been given to her company. She said the council wanted the project to be a voluntary/community-led project and she disagreed with that view and was then excluded by the council from the decision-making process.

We found that at a meeting with council staff and others, Ms C had agreed that an independent consultation should be undertaken to gauge support for the project and consider the most appropriate body to take it forward. We also found that the independent community consultation was done in accordance with the council's procurement guidelines. In light of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's children had been placed on the child protection register, and she complained that the head teacher at her son's school had made unsubstantiated allegations to the council's social work department about her parenting ability. Mrs C also complained that the head teacher had unreasonably failed to ask for the social work department's record to be corrected, despite later claiming that her remarks about the situation had been recorded inaccurately. The head teacher had also refused to meet with Mrs C to discuss her complaint.

The council said that as the head teacher disputed the accuracy of the records and as she had not had the opportunity to view them before Mrs C complained, the council did not consider them accurate. They said, however, that the remarks were not the substantive reason for placing Mrs C's children on the register. The council's investigation found that the head teacher's decision not to meet with Mrs C was based on advice from senior colleagues in the education department. The council also said that due to the personal nature of Mrs C's correspondence, the education department had been preparing to deal with the matter as a formal complaint, but this was overtaken by events, when Mrs C formalised her complaints. They said they recognised that it was inappropriate for formal records of conversations not to be agreed by all parties, and so they had taken steps to improve inter-department communication. They were, however, unable to share with Mrs C any details of actions taken in respect of the head teacher.

Our investigation found that it was not possible to determine the accuracy of the record, as it was disputed by the head teacher. The evidence did, however, show that the head teacher's remarks were not the reason that the children were placed on the register. We found that the education department had failed to request that the record be amended, despite being aware that the head teacher disputed the remarks attributed to her, and that child protection proceedings were underway. We also found that, although the council should have told Mrs C why the head teacher would not meet with her, the decision not to do so was one that the head teacher was entitled to make, and was not something that we could look at.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider adding an addendum to the social work department file to confirm the head teacher disputes the statements attributed to her; and
• apologise for the failure to correct the social work department record at the earliest available opportunity.