Local Government

  • Case ref:
    201303975
  • Date:
    August 2014
  • Body:
    A Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    primary school

Summary

Miss C said that for nearly two years her child had experienced bullying at school and that the problem was not being resolved. Miss C said that matters had reached the point where her child's sleep and health were affected and that, on occasion, her child was refusing to go to school. Miss C said that the behaviour of the children concerned was becoming worse and that the school were failing to take reasonable measures to protect her child.

When investigating the complaint, we carefully considered the complaints correspondence, the school's incident log, the council's anti-bullying policy and the school's policy on promoting positive behaviour. Our investigation found that, while bullying had taken place, not all of the incidents were directed against Miss C's child, and sometimes allegations had been made about her child as well. However, all reported incidents had been logged and the action taken about them was recorded. The school believed that the situation was improving and the evidence available confirmed this. Although we understood the difficult situation in which Miss C and her child found themselves, we did not uphold the complaint as we found that the school had taken all reasonable measures to deal with the matter.

  • Case ref:
    201305887
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    West Lothian Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    maintenance and repair of roads

Summary

After the council carried out road resurfacing work in Mrs C's street, she found that rainwater gathered on the dropped kerb outside her home. She complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to resolve her concerns about this.

The council provided a copy of the policy outlining the height tolerances allowed when resurfacing roads. They also explained that after Mrs C brought this to their attention they had reheated the road surface to try to lower the slight high point beside the dropped kerb. They said that this had to some extent been successful, but accepted that the road was still two to three millimetres higher than the dropped kerb. They said, however, that they were satisfied that the resurfacing work was within the allowed height tolerances and that further work to lower the road was not justified.

After considering all the information provided, we were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve Mrs C's concerns.

  • Case ref:
    201305733
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    West Lothian Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    school records/access to personnel education files

Summary

Miss C complained about various aspects of the way in which the council handled her complaint about comments in her daughter's school learning report. She said that she was given incorrect information that a discussion had taken place between staff at the school. She also complained that the council had not followed their complaints procedure and that the relevant head of service had not responded to an email.

We could find no evidence of what was discussed at the meeting where Miss C said the incorrect information was given, so we were unable to conclude whether this had happened and we could not uphold her complaint. There was evidence that the head of service had responded to her email, so we did not uphold that complaint. However, we upheld the complaint about complaints handling, as we found a number of areas where the council failed to follow their complaints handling procedure. This included that they did not appropriately recognise a stage 1 and stage 2 complaint (and so failed to meet the procedural requirements for each stage); they wrongly told Miss C that she had to meet with the school before she could complain; and they failed to record a meeting with Miss C which was part of their investigation into her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • apologise to Miss C for the failings identified in the handling of her complaint; and
  • feed back to education services staff the importance of complying with the council's complaints handling procedure.
  • Case ref:
    201305312
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    West Lothian Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    handling of application (complaints by opponents)

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not issued him with a neighbour notification about a planning application for a large development next to his business property. He only found out about this when development started, the effects of which had a significant impact on his ability to conduct his business from there. The council explained that the previous owner of Mr C's property had applied for planning permission to change its class of use. Permission had been given, but it said that that the council were to be notified at the start and end of that development. As this had not happened, the council had no record that the property was occupied, so it had not been included on the neighbour notification list.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. The adviser said that the council's explanation was reasonable in the circumstances, and that the root of the problem appeared to be the previous owner's failure to tell them that there had been a commencement of use or to ask for a number to be formally allocated to the property. As the council did not receive this information from the previous occupier, the premises were not included in the document used by the council to identify neighbouring properties that needed to be notified. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201301744
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    West Dunbartonshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    neighbour disputes and antisocial behaviour

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about noise from a neighbour on several occasions. Early on in these complaints, officers twice verified that there was excess noise, and issued her neighbour with warning notices. Ms C continued to complain to the council about noise, and they told her they would take legal action against her neighbour.

Ms C's concerns about noise continued, but she told us that she stopped complaining because she thought action was being taken. When nothing happened, Ms C made a formal complaint, and was told that there had been miscommunication within the council, and that, as there were no current complaints, no legal action would be taken.

The council's antisocial behaviour procedures specified what action should be taken in relation to each noise complaint. Our investigation found that the council did not keep Ms C updated and did not maintain records appropriately. They also failed to offer mediation early in the process, as required by their procedures. Finally, we found that internal communication had failed, meaning that because there were no recent verified complaints they were not able to take legal action even though they had said they would.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • ensure that staff in the antisocial investigation team take into account and follow the antisocial behaviour procedure when dealing with antisocial behaviour complaints, including the need to keep adequate records and to consider offering mediation;
  • advise the Ombudsman of the steps taken to address the communications failures that occurred in this case between the antisocial investigation team and housing support;
  • ensure that a procedure to manage antisocial behaviour complaints for this type of tenancy is put in place without further delay and provide evidence of this; and
  • apologise to Ms C for their failures to follow their antisocial behaviour procedure, and for the inconvenience and upset that this caused her.
  • Case ref:
    201302526
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    The Moray Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    conservation areas, listed buildings, tree preservation orders

Summary

Mr C complained to the council's planning enforcement team about tree pruning that had taken place at a property in the conservation area where he lives. The council contacted the person who had had the trees pruned, who then took steps to mitigate this. The council decided that this was satisfactory, and took no further action. Mr C was unhappy as he thought that the council should have taken enforcement action.

We took advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the council's actions in responding to this matter were reasonable. He also said that in a conservation area, while there is a presumption in favour of preserving trees, they are not automatically protected. As we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure by the council, we did not uphold the complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201305642
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    repairs and maintenance

Summary

Mr C complained that, after he ended his tenancy, the council unreasonably invoiced him for works they carried out to his council house. He explained that while he was still a tenant he had tried to contact the council, in writing and by phone, asking for permission to make alterations and improvements to his home. As he did not hear from them to the contrary, he had gone ahead with the work.

The council explained that they had no record of Mr C's attempts to contact them. They said that they had to carry out substantial repairs and alterations to return the house to a condition where they could re-let it, and they provided us with details of all the work that was done. They also explained that the tenancy agreement specified that if works were carried out without permission, the council were entitled to reclaim (from the tenant who carried them out) the cost of returning the property to an acceptable letting standard.

We reviewed the information from both Mr C and the council, and could find no evidence to show that he had tried to get permission. As the council clearly did not give their permission, and as in those circumstances the tenancy agreement entitled them to recover the costs, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201305629
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    neighbour disputes and antisocial behaviour

Summary

Mrs C's neighbour is a council tenant living in temporary accommodation. Mrs C said that the tenant was noisy on a number of occasions, and she was unhappy with the council's response to the problem. She complained that the council were not dealing with this effectively, and that a housing officer gave neighbours incorrect information about who to contact if there were further problems.

We reviewed the relevant records and correspondence, as well as the council's comments on the complaint and their procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. We concluded that the council's actions were reasonable and were taken in line with their procedure. We also found no evidence that the housing officer had given incorrect information about who to contact, so we could not uphold Mrs C's complaint and we made no recommendations. We did, however, suggest to the council that they could in future consider providing written information, such as a leaflet, for neighbours with details of who to contact about any further antisocial behaviour.

  • Case ref:
    201304802
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy/administration

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's assessment of a planning application for the construction of a dormer window and roof-light in a neighbouring house in a conservation area. He said that they had not properly assessed the application against the relevant planning policies, local development plan and the area conservation appraisal.

The council responded to the complaint by acknowledging that the case officer's report did not fully detail the consideration of the application, and made it difficult to understand the council's decision-making. However, they had reviewed the way the application was considered and concluded that the decision was appropriate.

We took independent advice on this from one of our planning advisers, considered the relevant case files and reviewed the planning application and relevant planning policies. From our review we were satisfied that the application had been properly considered, taking into account the conservation status of the area and the relevant local conservation appraisal document, local development plan and planning policy. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the application was considered, and did not uphold the complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201304370
  • Date:
    July 2014
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    communication staff attitude and confidentiality

Summary

Mr C owns a property in a building where the council administer a tenement management scheme (TMS). He was unhappy about the way in which the council billed him for various emergency works there. He also said that there was a delay in issuing invoices, the council did not ensure that invoices and final notices were printed and delivered in a timely manner, and that an incorrect date of payment received was referred to in responses to his complaint.

We made enquiries of the council, and received their comments and relevant paperwork. They accepted that there was an unreasonable delay in issuing the invoices, and we found that they did not appear to have told Mr C or other residents about their normal practice in dealing with these. We upheld this element of his complaint, as well as the incorrect date of payment being shown, which the council also acknowledged. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the printing and issuing of invoices and final notices, we saw no evidence that the delay was caused by the council's mail processing, and so we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • apologise to Mr C for the delay in issuing invoices for work undertaken at his property;
  • review their invoicing procedure under the TMS, specifically in relation to the timely issuing of invoices and how residents are kept informed of when invoices will be issued; and
  • apologise to Mr C for the errors in two of their letters.