Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C's neighbour was granted planning consent by the council for a single storey rear extension and the addition of two dormer windows to their property. Other renovations to the existing property were also carried out at this time including replacing windows in the lounge. Mr C complained that in granting planning permission, the council did not follow their own policies and guidelines in relation to the amenity of his property.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the council had considered all the relevant policies and guidelines when assessing the application. However, we also found that, in responding to Mr C's complaint, they had referred to different considerations for the distances between windows in neighbouring properties and habitable/non-habitable rooms in any new development. These considerations were not mentioned in any of their existing policies or guidance. We also found that the council had incorrectly advised Mr C on two issues when responding to his complaint. He was wrongly told that the kitchen in his neighbour’s extension was a non-habitable room, and that the replacement windows in the existing lounge did not require planning consent. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made recommendations to the council about the incorrect advice he was given.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for initially incorrectly advising him that the kitchen was classed as a non-habitable room;
• ensure that at the next review of guidance, the different considerations for habitable and non-habitable rooms are clearly set out; and
• apologise to Mr C for incorrectly advising that him the replacement windows in his neighbour's property did not require planning consent under the terms of the relevant legislation, and make the relevant staff aware of our adviser's comments about this.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the way the council dealt with their antisocial behaviour complaint. They complained that the council failed to force the landlord of a neighbouring property to repair and soundproof their premises. They also complained that the council failed to deal with the antisocial behaviour of the tenant and that the council's senior investigator threatened them. We told Mr and Mrs C that the first complaint was not ready for our office as it had not been through the council's complaints procedure and we felt that we could not reach a supportable conclusion on the third complaint.

Our investigation, therefore, considered only how the council handled the antisocial behaviour complaints. We looked at how Mr and Mrs C's complaints were recorded, what action the council took and whether they took into account the relevant policies and legislation. We found that the complaints were recorded on the appropriate database, that the council took account of the relevant internal procedure and the relevant legislation, and that they had made attempts over a prolonged period of time to resolve this in line with their process. As the council had done as they should have and had implemented their procedure reasonably, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C's child was a pupil at a school and was the target of a bullying incident. The school investigated, and suspended two pupils as a result of their enquiries. Ms C's child continued to feel intimidated by one of the pupils and became unwell, resulting in an absence from school. Ms C, the school and the council were all involved in trying to find a way to help her child return to school, and a number of measures were introduced to stop further bullying. Ms C's child went back to school but, after further incidents, Ms C was not satisfied that the measures protected her child and decided to request a place at another school.

Ms C complained to us that the council failed to respond reasonably to her concerns about engagement and communication with her and her child. She also complained that they did not follow anti-bullying policies and procedures. Our investigation upheld both of Ms C's complaints. We found that, although the council were willing to engage with her and had suggested positive steps such as mediation, they had not always taken her child's views into account and had not adequately documented their decision-making process. We also found that they failed to record bullying incidents in line with the anti-bullying policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• keep a clear record showing what factors have been considered when making decisions such as inviting to meetings parents with whom children have no contact;
• ensure that staff at the school are aware of the Scottish Government's GIRFEC (Getting It Right For Every Child) policy and its aims;
• apologise to Ms C and her child for failing to record reported incidents in line with the relevant policy;
• carry out an audit of the school's recording of bullying incidents to establish whether all incidents are being appropriately recorded in line with policy; and
• ensure that, at the next revision of the anti-bullying policy, the national approach to anti-bullying is referenced and taken into account.

Summary

Mrs C drove over a pothole and damaged her car. The matter was dealt with by the council's insurers. Mrs C complained to us because she said that she had been advised by the council that the pothole had been reported previously. She was unhappy that the council had failed to follow up this previous report in line with their obligations.

The council told us that they did not tell Mrs C that the pothole had been reported previously. They said that Mrs C's report about the pothole was the first report they received, that the pothole was categorised appropriately and that a repair was completed within the relevant timescale. We did not uphold the complaint.