Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the council's lack of action in dealing with three large trees outside his home, which he said were not only dangerous, but also overhung his garden. Mr C also said that the trees, which had broken branches hanging from them, had caused damage to cars in his driveway. Mr C reported the matter to the council in January 2013 and again in October 2013. In December 2013 he was told this would be dealt with as an emergency and a council representative called at his home in January 2014 to look at the trees. As the work had still not been undertaken in June 2014 he again contacted the council. He told us in August 2014 that the trees had still not been trimmed.

We found that a works order was put in place with effect from October 2013 with a completion date of October 2014 so, technically, the council still had time to complete the work by their target. However, we found that they did not tell Mr C what that target date was. This failure to pass on information led to Mr C's belief that there was a delay and, for that reason, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to tell him the target date for work to be carried out on the trees;
• take steps to ensure that the work is completed by the target date; and
• remind staff in the arboricultural team of the importance of logging visits and phone calls.

ummary

Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably assess his and his wife (Mrs C)'s income and expenditure when determining their entitlement to a discretionary housing payment (DHP). He complained that the income and expenditure figures on the application form had been tampered with without his permission. He said some of the expenditure figures had been ignored completely and the council failed to ask him for further proof of the figures he submitted. Mr C also said the council's figures did not give a true level of monthly expenditure for food, heating and clothing.

The Department of Work and Pensions guidance says that it is for a council to decide whether they provide applicants with financial assistance with their housing costs and how they treat an applicant's income or expenditure when doing so. The overriding principle is that a council should act reasonably. The evidence showed that the council converted Mr and Mrs C's monthly income and expenditure figures to weekly figures - which we found reasonable. In the instances where the council's figures differed from Mr and Mrs C's, there was documentary evidence to show that the figures the council used were accurate.

The evidence also showed that the council disregarded £100 per month that Mr C listed for personal items. It was for the council to decide how they treated an applicant's income or expenditure when assessing their entitlement to DHP, and we did not consider their reason for disregarding the £100 to be unreasonable.

In their reconsideration process, the council had advised Mr C to include any special factors or items of essential expenditure that he thought they had not taken fully into account. This was Mr C's opportunity to explain the figures he submitted for heating, clothing, food and personal items. Mr C did not appear to provide any information on special factors in these areas to support his case. The fact that the council did not ask for supporting documentary evidence did not, in our view, have an adverse effect on their consideration of this. The evidence also showed that the council acted in accordance with their guidance for expenditure on food, heating and clothing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, in future, where their income and expenditure figures differ from an applicant's, they explain their reasons for this in their DHP claim decision letters.

Summary

Mrs C is the secretary of a group that used a local community facility. The council decided to use some of the space there for their staff and sought a principal tenant for the remaining space. It was planned that the tenant would manage the use of the community space to ensure that other local groups could continue to use it. Mrs C told us that the council had not consulted appropriately and so had failed to involve the local community and tell them about decisions on the future management of the facility. She also complained that the council had not made the local community aware of the process to become the principal tenant.

During our investigation, we found that the council had considered carrying out a consultation and had decided it was unnecessary. We found that there were no policies or procedures that they were expected to follow for this, and that they were entitled to use their judgment to make the decision. We noted that they had developed a new framework for staff to help them with consultations, including deciding when to consult. Although we did not uphold the complaints, we were critical that the council did not erect a To Let sign at the facility. We also considered that the property marketing material could have been sent to respondents of a previous community engagement exercise but, overall, we were satisfied that the council acted reasonably.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with a time-frame for the implementation of the new consultation framework; and
• consider developing a procedure for the future marketing of the community space.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council installed an unsuitable extractor fan in his house. He was concerned that it was designed to be left on 24 hours a day and that he was responsible for the running costs. When he switched the fan off, he found that there was a draught from the duct, and was unhappy that the fan did not have filters, which he believed should have been fitted when it was installed.

We found that the fan was installed as part of a refurbishment programme for multi-storey buildings involving comprehensive recladding and insulation. Due to the techniques used to provide sealed 'air-tightness' and controlled ventilation, fans were installed to allow the building to breathe. The manufacturer's technical guidance showed that a filter was not required, given the way the fan was to be used, and that if it was used continuously as designed there would be no problem with draughts. Estimated running costs were extremely low and the council said Mr C would recover these through energy savings because of the insulation and other works carried out. We found this reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about planning permission granted for an area of ground behind his house. He said that in determining the permission, the council relied on incorrect information and allowed a building to be erected that overlooked his house. He said that the council had dealt inconsistently with this application, and a site visit should have been made so that officers would have better understood the implications of the development on his home. He said that his complaints to the council about these matters had not been handled properly.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that while certain incorrect information had been reported in a council document, the responsibility for ensuring its accuracy lay with the developer and not with the council. Despite this, we found that the planning application was determined on its merits and, while a site visit was not mandatory, it was likely that one had been made. There was no evidence to suggest that the council had dealt inconsistently with this matter in comparison to its normal decision-making process and, indeed, it seemed that the council had gone further than necessary in considering the water management implications of the application. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to cut back trees outside her property. Ms C told us the trees were overhanging her house to the extent that they were nearly touching her roof. Ms C said her television reception had been affected, and she was living in constant darkness on the side of her house facing the trees, which meant she had stopped using her living room due to the lack of natural light. Ms C said her roof was black with moss from the trees, and she had to clean up leaves and bird droppings regularly.

We found that the council had told Ms C the trees would be dealt with; however, nearly a year later, the work had not been carried out. The council said there was a breakdown in communication between work teams, which led to confusion between shifts and, as a result, there was a delay in the work being started. We upheld Ms C's complaint as it was unacceptable that the work had not been carried out.

In our recommendations to the council, we had asked them to arrange for Ms C's roof to be cleaned. The council refused, and so we asked them to make her a goodwill payment of £100 to Ms C instead. The council again refused. Their reason, in both instances, was that payment or any works other than the actual tree works was disproportionate to their failure to deal with the trees. We were disappointed by the council's intransigence as, in our view, it was entirely reasonable for the council to make a tangible expression of regret, in line with our office's guidance on apology, given the effect that their very poor service had on Ms C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for failing to deal with the trees outside her property;
• provide Ms C, in writing, with a date for the work to be carried out on the trees, and copy that communication to us;
• draw up an action plan to ensure that such delays do not happen again, and copy the action plan to us.