Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained about how her child's primary school dealt with an incident involving her child and a teacher. She said that the school had not communicated appropriately with her as a parent and that she had been unaware of what was upsetting her child and why they were reluctant to go to school. She complained to the council that she was not told about the incident, was not involved in a meeting with her child and school staff, and did not receive a full response from the school.

Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Mrs C, the school and the council. We also reviewed the records of the school's investigation and the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint, after which we upheld her complaints. We found that, given the seriousness of the complaints made by her child, Mrs C should have been included and involved in discussions. We also found that the council's record of the handling of her complaint did not match the response she received, so we made recommendations to the council about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and and her child that she was not informed and involved when the incident occurred; and
• remind relevant staff to ensure that complaints are clearly set out and responses clearly relate to agreed complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the level of support and help that school staff provided to his child, who had additional support needs as well as other disorders. Mr C also said that staff (who he said were not properly trained) had inappropriately restrained his child, and that had adequate support been in place, events could have been avoided. He was particularly unhappy with the handling of one specific incident. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to reasonably investigate and respond to his concerns.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that staff had used physical restraint on one occasion when staff at the school assessed that the child was a danger to themselves and to others, and the council said minimum force was used. We recognised that this had been an extremely stressful and upsetting situation, but found no evidence that school staff had failed to act in line with the risk assessment in place. We also found no evidence to support Mr C's position that physical restraint was used on a number of occasions. The council were satisfied that, prior to the child's needs escalating, staff had been sufficiently trained to meet those needs and had put support in place to do that. We were satisfied that the school responded appropriately to the incidents Mr C complained about and that as a result of the complaint the council had carried out several reviews and used his child's case to highlight learning and improve practice. We were also satisfied that the council had carried out a detailed investigation into Mr C's concerns and had provided reasonable responses to the points he raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider their current procedures to decide whether incident reports should be shared with parents.

Summary

Mr C complained that, when he bought a property to let, the council had unreasonably decided that he did not qualify for exemption of council tax for an empty dwelling. He said he had carried out substantial work, including replacing the kitchen and bathroom, rewiring and redecoration, which should have made the property eligible for the exemption for the duration of the upgrading work. The council investigated his complaints and found that, because the previous owner had received a discount for a second home on the property, the property did not qualify for exemption as an empty dwelling as it had not been continuously occupied for three months before he bought it.

Our investigation considered his correspondence with the council, relevant legislation and amendments relating to council tax and empty dwellings, and the council's responses. We found that the council had taken appropriate actions in line with legislation and that their responses to his complaints explained the legislation and the changes relating to their decisions.

Summary

Mr C was given notice to quit his rented accommodation, so he contacted the council about alternative housing. They assessed him as being involuntarily homeless. Mr C told the council that he had health issues that meant his accommodation needed certain kinds of fixtures and furnishings and that he could not share accommodation. The council, however, told him that they required a medical opinion supporting this before they would offer him only accommodation meeting these criteria. Mr C was offered various properties over the following twelve months before he accepted a temporary accommodation and, soon after, a permanent accommodation. He complained to the council that the accommodation he had been offered was unreasonable given his health issues. The council responded that they had not received any medical opinion that indicated the offers had been unreasonable. Mr C brought his complaints to us.

We found that Mr C had not supplied the council with any medical evidence that supported his views about what sort of accommodation was suitable. Given this, we decided that the council's offers were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaints. However, we did note that the council had not responded to a complaint specifically about the temporary accommodation even though they had considered and investigated it, and we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind all relevant staff of the importance of responding to all matters raised and investigated as complaints.

Summary

Mr C had carried out some work in an area of amenity ground immediately behind his house. The council took the view that this gave the ground the appearance of a garden and an extension of his own land. They said that this was contrary to the terms of the planning consent for the housing development where he lived. He was required to return the land to its previous condition. Mr C complained to us and said that other residents had done similar works to the land behind their gardens but that action had not been taken against them. He believed that the council were not applying planning rules fairly.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation showed that the ground concerned was amenity space to which members of the public required access. Mr C had done some works there which, after they were brought to their attention, the council inspected. They said that the work gave the impression of a private garden and so discouraged members of the public from accessing it, and that although other residents had placed picnic tables in the area, these did not affect public enjoyment or access. This was the professional opinion of council officers and as such the council were entitled to be guided by it. There was no evidence that Mr C was not treated fairly because the circumstances relating to the ground in this particular case were different.

Summary

Mrs C lived in a small residential development. The site consisted of multiple plots and various planning consents were in place for individual developments. It was served by a shared access track with planning conditions in place requiring the developer to upgrade the track surface and drainage before building work started.

Mrs C complained that development progressed at the site without the access track being upgraded. The council took a pragmatic view that it was appropriate for the final surfacing work to be done after all work on the site was completed. However, in the meantime, the track surface became badly damaged and no interim maintenance work was carried out. Initially the council had worked with the main developer to ensure the track was maintained, but the developer sold on a number of their plots and no longer considered themselves liable for the access track.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and found that the pragmatic view taken by the council about final completion of the track was reasonable. However, we were critical of their failure to ensure that interim maintenance work was carried out. In particular, we found that the original planning conditions were poorly worded and made no provision for interim maintenance of the track. Furthermore, we considered that the council did not fully explore who was liable for the planning conditions after the developer sold on their plots and failed to take steps to work with the responsible party to ensure access to the site was maintained.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their use of planning conditions in cases involving unadopted road access to multi-owner developments to ensure that a clear record is obtained as to the proposed construction, the council's approval, and the timing of the work;
• consider using conditions to ensure that satisfactory schemes of long-term maintenance of private access roads are submitted and approved by the planning authority;
• review their position as to who is responsible for discharging the outstanding conditions relating to the access track, with reference to the adviser's comments on section 145(2) of the 1997 Act; and
• having clarified who is responsible for the access track, work with the responsible party to ensure interim maintenance work is carried out on the access track.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that her son's school had not responded appropriately to a playground incident. She said she should have been contacted but instead her son was sent home with a note in his bag. The council investigated but did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, and she was not satisfied with their response.

Our investigation reviewed how the council had investigated and responded to her complaints. We found that, although they provided a reasonable explanation to Mrs C's initial complaint, their final response (at stage two of their complaints process) was confusing and the conclusions reached did not clearly follow from the explanations given. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for incorrectly stating that the council did 'not uphold' elements of the complaint at Stage 2 of the complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C was issued with a fine for driving in a bus lane. He emailed the council appealing this, but did not receive a response. The council then wrote to him, telling him that a surcharge had been applied as the fine had not been paid. As the council did not hear from Mr C, they then passed the matter to sheriff officers to recover the unpaid charges. The sheriff officers wrote to Mr C warning that if he did not pay, they would take action to recover the amount through arrestment of earnings (where Mr C's employer would be instructed to deduct the money owed to the council directly from Mr C's wages), which would incur further charges. Three months later, the charges remained unpaid, and the sheriff officers carried out enforcement action. Mr C then contacted the council to complain that his appeal had not been dealt with. The council investigated this and said that they had no record of having received his email. However, they looked into the concerns he had raised, and advised him that there were no problems identified with when he was recorded in the bus lane. Mr C accepted this but remained unhappy that he had to pay increased charges because they did not receive his appeal.

We were satisfied that the council reviewed Mr C's email evidence and responded to his appeal. They also checked for evidence of a system failure and concluded that the email did not reach them for unknown reasons. In terms of Mr C's concerns that he was disadvantaged in terms of the additional charges applied, we found that there was a missed opportunity in him checking matters related to his appeal with the council when he received their further correspondence saying that the fine had been increased due to non-payment, and when the sheriff officers wrote to him about the unpaid fine. It was likely that the missing appeal would have been identified and the increased charges might have been avoided had Mr C contacted the council at these times.

In view of this, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably nor did we identify any failing in the council's appeal process.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy at the time the council took to deal with a complaint he had made about dry rot in his neighbour's property, which had affected his property. He said that it took almost a year for a serious environmental health issue to be addressed.

We found that although the relevant legislation does not require councils to serve a work notice in these circumstances, the council intervened to help Mr C resolve the situation and did serve a notice. The legislation also states that if the owner does not comply with the notice within the time set out for it, the local authority can carry out the work itself and reclaim the cost from the owner. When the owner failed to comply with the notice, the council decided to carry out the work themselves and had explained to Mr C the difficulties they had encountered in trying to gain access to the property as well as later having to deal with a bank who, by then, owned the property. In total, the time between the work notice being issued and the specialist work starting on the property was seven months. In the circumstances we found this to be reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council delayed in notifying him of a rodent problem affecting his property. He also said that they did not give him enough notice before warning him that they might take legal action against him about pest control treatment and that they did not reasonably investigate his complaints.

We found evidence that the council had told Mr C about the rodent problem within a reasonable timescale. Furthermore, we considered that their email warning him about possible legal action was reasonable, given that Mr C had told them he could not afford the cost of the treatment and did not know how to proceed. In terms of the handling of Mr C's complaint, we examined a significant amount of correspondence. We concluded that the council provided reasonable responses along with evidence to support their conclusions, and that this was provided within appropriate timescales.