Local Government

Summary

Mr C obtained planning permission to build a house and garage. After construction work began, a neighbouring property owner complained, and the council's planning enforcement officer made a site visit. The officer considered that there was a breach of one of the conditions of the planning consent, which required landscaping plans to be submitted before work started on the site. He also found that the building was not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, potentially leading to an unacceptable increase in the overall height of the finished building. He advised the builders to cease work, then issued a temporary stop notice requiring all work to stop pending submission and approval of the required landscaping plans. The plans were later submitted and approved, and work recommenced, but Mr C encountered further delays when he was told that he would need approval from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for his proposed drainage system. Mr C complained that the council were heavy-handed in their approach to planning enforcement and did not work with him to resolve the problems on site.

We found that the council did not take formal enforcement action against Mr C's development. However, they did take reasonable steps to halt work on site to ensure that an acceptable building was being constructed. Although we were satisfied with their approach to planning enforcement, we were critical of their communication with Mr C. We found no evidence to suggest they consulted with him to check that parties were working to the correct set of plans. We also found that the council raised enforcement issues in a piecemeal fashion rather than providing Mr C with a comprehensive assessment of the development against what they considered acceptable. Finally, we found evidence of inadequate communication between the council's planning and building control services. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• conduct a review of their handling of Mr C's project with a view to identifying ways of improving communication between planning and building control and with applicants; and
• consider providing information regarding the need to consult with SEPA on planning decisions relating to developments using septic tanks and soakaways (gravel-filled channels or pits that help manage surface water).

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not address or adequately handle his complaints about antisocial behaviour and noise pollution involving neighbours who were council tenants.

At the start of our investigation the council explained that although they had investigated Mr C's complaint, he had not made a formal complaint through their complaints handling procedure. We considered, however, that the council should have applied their complaints handling procedure in the first instance.

In investigating Mr C's complaint about noise pollution, we found that the council had followed the relevant procedures and had dealt with this reasonably, and we did not uphold his complaint. The council's investigation found that the building predated the relevant building regulation and that there was an issue with sound insulation. Although there was no requirement to bring the sound insulation up to modern-day standards, the council agreed to do so, and to share the costs with Mr C. Various options were still being considered when Mr C brought his complaints to us.

In relation to other antisocial behaviour that Mr C complained about, however, which included graffiti on his property, alleged illegal activity and accumulation of rubbish in the garden, we found that the council had not taken reasonable steps to address his concerns. We upheld his complaint, as we were not satisfied that the process for dealing with rubbish had been followed as, although a verbal warning had been given to his neighbour, there was no written warning as detailed in the council procedure. We also did not consider that they had explained their procedure on graffiti to Mr C or advised him to contact the police in relation to alleged criminal behaviour, although we did find that they had recommended he contact the police in relation to any breach of the peace that took place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider taking further action to address the noise transference issue if the agreed works are judged to be unsuccessful;
• take steps to raise awareness of their complaints handling procedure, particularly the definition of a complaint, with the relevant service area staff;
• record Mr C's complaint and provide an apology for failing to use the proper complaints handling procedure in the first instance; and
• apologise to Mr C for their failure to fully address all his concerns about antisocial behaviour and provide him with an assurance that their estates management framework, which includes their procedures for addressing antisocial behaviour, will be followed as appropriate in future.

Summary

Mrs C, a private homeowner, complained to the council about a fence that they put up at her neighbour’s property. She complained that they had not consulted her about this, and her door now faced a six-foot fence. She had suggested other options that would not have impacted upon her, but said the council refused to consider these and had not responded adequately to her complaints. The council apologised for not involving her in discussions before they put the fence up and explained why they thought her suggestions were not practicable. Our investigation upheld Mrs C's complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised for not consulting her about the fence, we did not make a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delays in responding to her complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the council handled work that would possibly reroute sewerage infrastructure through her garden. The work was to be done as part of the council’s flood defence programme, which was originally the subject of public consultation.

The original plans had a minimal effect on Mrs C, but in 2010 the main contractor showed her a copy of a revised plan, which indicated that a new sewer was to be laid under her and her neighbour's gardens. This was the first Mrs C or her neighbour knew of the change. She was concerned that the new sewer would have significant consequences for her property and complained to the council. The council maintained that the flood prevention scheme was empowered by the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, which they said gave them the power to amend or deviate from (within a certain tolerance) the original plans without further consultation or provision of information to those affected. Considerable correspondence and meetings between the council, Mrs C, her neighbour, the design engineers, and the constructors ensued, ending in a meeting in March 2011. Mrs C and her neighbour considered that negotiations were ongoing at this stage as there were several action points from the meeting about further consultation or information to be provided to them. The next communication Mrs C received from the council was a formal 'Notice to Proceed' with the revised plans three weeks later.

At this point Mrs C felt that she had no option but to seek legal advice. After correspondence between her solicitor, the council and Scottish Water (who did not agree with the council's view) a compromise was reached that the new sewer would not be routed through the gardens. Mrs C then asked the council to reimburse her legal fees, but they refused.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, focused only on consultation with and provision of information to those affected by the scheme, rather than the legal views of the various parties. We considered that it would have been reasonable for the council to have consulted with, or at least told, Mrs C at the point when the plans changed so radically. We were also disappointed that the council were giving mixed messages when they were corresponding and meeting with Mrs C and her neighbour in March 2011, but then without further warning issued the Notice to Proceed.

On this basis we considered that it was reasonable for Mrs C to feel that she had no option but to take legal advice, and that the direct intervention of her solicitor led to the compromise finally agreed. For this reason we took the unusual step of recommending financial redress for the reimbursement of Mrs C's legal fees.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failings identified; and
• reimburse Mrs C's legal fees, following production to the council of confirmation of the fees directly incurred in relation to the maladministration and service failure identified during our investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that his child had been allocated to a composite class, where he felt the child's wellbeing was not being met. He said the school had not followed the guidelines for composite classes, and had not properly considered his concerns about bullying and his child’s welfare. Our investigation considered the council's policy on composite classes and reviewed the evidence from meetings with the school and the council's responses. We found that the council had delegated authority on the composition of classes to the head teacher, who had operated within the guidelines laid down by the council. We also found that the school had listened to Mr C's concerns about his child’s welfare, and had told Mr C what they would do to address them. Mr C had not, however, raised his concern about bullying directly with the school, and so they had not had a chance to address this. We said that he should raise any future concerns with them.

Summary

Mr C phoned the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team to ask about applying for a crisis grant. The call handler said that he was not eligible because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C then complained because he felt the call handler did not deal with his enquiries properly. In responding to the complaint, the council said they were sorry that Mr C was unhappy with the service, but confirmed that because he was not in receipt of an appropriate qualifying benefit, he was not eligible.

In response to our enquiries, the council told us that they did not process a claim for Mr C because it was clear he did not meet the relevant criteria for a crisis grant. They also said that, since then, the Scottish Government had relaxed the eligibility criteria and if he was now to apply with similar circumstances, they might be able to consider his application. We checked the Scottish Government guidance that was in place when Mr C contacted the council. This confirmed that those applying for a crisis grant should normally be in receipt of certain benefits. However, the guidance also said that the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant was the severity of the applicant's circumstances and the likely impact on them and their family. It also said that if an applicant was not in receipt of qualifying benefits, the council could make an exception to the requirement for this if they were satisfied that the person had no other means of support, and an award would avoid serious damage or risk to the health or safety of them or their family.

We found that in saying that Mr C was not eligible for a crisis grant the council effectively made a decision on his request. In addition, when the Scottish Government clarified the guidance, they did not relax the criteria. The guidance in place when Mr C contacted the council clearly said that the key test of eligibility was the need of the individual, not whether they were in receipt of a qualifying benefit, and that the authority had discretion to make an exception to that requirement. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and found that the council should have processed his application. Had they done so, Mr C could have accessed the review process after being told that he did not meet the criteria, which might have changed the outcome of his application.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to handle his enquiries about a crisis grant appropriately; and
• remind staff administering the Scottish Welfare Fund that, if a person clearly wants to apply, they should process an application appropriately even if success is unlikely.
• 

Summary

Ms C received emails from a council officer that contained comments that she felt were inappropriate. She complained to the council about these and had to chase up replies. When the replies were given, Ms C was dissatisfied with them and complained to us.

We contacted the council asking whether they would act to resolve the complaint, and they did take some action. We then decided to investigate the complaints, and concluded that the emails did contain inappropriate comments about Ms C, and that the council had not responded reasonably to her complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised to her for the inappropriate comments, we did not need to make a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C that the time taken to respond to her complaints was not reasonable.

Summary

Mr C holds a licence issued by the council, and was interviewed after a complaint was made against him as a licence-holder. He complained to the council that he had not been told what his rights were at the interview and asked that they tell him what these were. At the end of their complaints procedure, he remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We found that the interview was not a hearing to determine Mr C's civil rights and so there was no requirement to advise him of his rights at that point. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to his other complaint, we found that the council had, in correspondence, advised Mr C of what his rights had been and so we did not uphold that complaint either.

Summary

Mr C, who is a councillor, complained on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) that the council had not made a proper offer of housing to her and that they had not responded reasonably to his complaints about this. Ms A was designated as being homeless and under statutory legislation was entitled to two priority offers of accommodation. If she refused these, she would be placed on the standard housing waiting list. Mr C complained to us about the second offer of priority housing.

Our investigation found that there was evidence that in making their offer the council followed their procedure, which complied with the relevant legislation. We also found evidence to suggest that Ms A refused the offer, although Mr C had disputed this. The council provided copies of internal documentation, as well as screen shots from their computer system and of a note of a phone conversation with Ms A. Both sides provided evidence that Ms A had appealed a decision by the council on the property in question. The documentation provided to applicants made it clear that appealing the decision would mean that the council would deem the property to have been refused and/or withdrawn. On balance, we considered that the offer had been duly made and then refused.

On the matter of how the council dealt with Mr C's complaint, we found that at the time the council had a three-stage complaints process, which set out timescales by which each stage should be dealt with. The council did not adhere to those timescales and so we upheld the complaint. Since then, the council have introduced the new, nationally adopted, two-stage process based on the model procedure from our Complaints Standards Authority. The council also told us that they had reviewed their complaints resourcing and provided additional resources on a six-month trial basis, after which this would be reviewed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with information on the outcome of the review of resourcing for their complaints handling function.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council about the actions of their agents while they were pursuing a debt with her, and the way she had been spoken to by a council officer on the phone. The council did not respond to her specific concern about the council officer when they replied to her complaints, and so Miss C raised this with us.

Our investigation found that the council had taken steps to clarify the specific matters Miss C wished to complain of. As these included the way she had been spoken to by a council officer and this was not addressed in the council's response, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C that they did not respond to her specific complaint about the way that a council officer had spoken to her.