Local Government

Summary

Mr C moved into a property as part of a house swap. He said that it was not habitable because of damp, condensation and mould, and that this affected his and his family’s health. He told us that the council delayed in sorting out the problems and in responding to his complaints, and did not decant (temporarily move) them into another property. Mr C also complained that when he sent an insurance claim to the council for items damaged by damp and mould, the council and/or their insurers did not take full account of his evidence when they assessed the damage. He eventually moved his family to a privately rented property.

Our investigation found that, although no solution was found while the family were in the property, the council did not delay in trying to address the problems, so we did not uphold that complaint. We did uphold the complaint about decanting. The council told us that they considered moving the family, but decided it was not necessary because the type of work needed did not require this. They could not, however, show us evidence to support their decision.

Although we cannot look at the amount of an insurance award, we can look at the decision-making process that led to it. After a considerable amount of discussion with the council, in which both we and they took legal advice, they provided us with evidence about that process in relation to Mr C's claim. Having reviewed this, we took the view that the insurers had given the council all the relevant information. We did, however, find some failings and delays in responding to Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider reviewing and adapting the documentation on requests for major repairs to allow for discussions and/or consideration of decanting to be recorded; and
• issue a written apology for the failings identified during our investigation.

Summary

Mrs C said that a social work services complaints review panel had made several recommendations setting out action to be taken by social work services concerning her son and grandchild. She complained that the council failed to implement three of the recommendations.

The evidence supplied by the council showed that they had in fact implemented the disputed recommendations, but we had concerns that they were unable to provide documentary evidence to support all of their actions. When we raised these concerns, the council told us that they had recently formalised how they keep track of actions to be taken following recommendations made at a panel, and from 1 April 2014 introduced plans for improved recording of actions and learning. As they had already put in place an appropriate process, we did not make any formal recommendation on this. We were also concerned that the council did not currently update complainants about actions taken following panel recommendations, unless they specifically asked for this. During our contact with them about the case, the council said they may consider in future notifying complainants, either verbally or in writing, when panel recommendations have been carried out. We told them that we would welcome this change.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council acted unreasonably in granting temporary planning permission for a mast to be erected on the Isle of Orsay (an uninhabited island). The mast was intended to collect meteorological information essential for the development of an offshore wind farm near Islay. The wind farm had been designated a project of national importance by the Scottish Government, and the planning application for it was to be considered by the government, rather than the council.

Mrs C said that the council had not taken account of Orsay's special protected area (SPA) status under European law, and they had not given sufficient weight to objectors' requests for an environmental impact assessment. Mrs C also felt the council's decision was inconsistent with a previous planning decision on a proposal to site the mast nearby. She said that the council's actions contravened the Aarhus Convention (a European convention establishing a number of rights of the public with regard to the environment) in relation to public participation and environmental information.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who said that the mast could not be considered to have the same impact as a wind turbine because of the difference in size, and that the temporary nature of the permission was an important consideration. Orsay's SPA designation had been addressed in Scottish National Heritage (SNH)'s response to the council's planning consultation and the council acted reasonably in relying on this in their decision. He also said that the council were entitled to decide how much weight to give to information from objectors. They had to bear in mind that a decision giving too much weight to objections from members of the public, as opposed to advice received from SNH as a specialist body, would have been open to challenge. The adviser said the application for the alternative site was withdrawn before the council could consider it, so no precedent was set, and in their decision the council could give no weight to the applicant's decision to withdraw. The adviser went on to say that he did not consider that the principles of the Aarhus Convention had been breached and that the council's approach to the hearing had reflected general good practice.

Overall, our investigation found that the council acted reasonably and in accordance with general good practice in determining the planning application. The decision they reached was one that they were entitled to make and they acted within their discretionary powers when considering submissions from objectors to the application.

Summary

When Mr C moved into a new property, he discovered that the roof space was not adequately insulated. He contacted the developer and the council. Following discussion with the developer, he contacted the council's building standards department for help and asked for a copy of an updated drawing for the roof space. It took seven months for the council to provide the drawing. Mr C was then unhappy with the handling of his complaint about this, and that an email to the chief executive had not been responded to.

Having carefully considered his complaint and documentation, we considered that there was an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with a copy of the drawing. The council had already agreed to apologise to Mr C for this. We also found that they had not made sure that Mr C was aware of their role and limitations in helping him try to resolve issues with the developer. We found that the complaints handling had been poor. The council had not followed their published complaints procedure on a number of occasions during the handling of his complaint, and had not considered whether the particular circumstances meant that they should have escalated it straight to the investigation stage of their procedure. The council acknowledged that Mr C's email to the chief executive was not responded to in a timely manner.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back to building standards staff that, should a similar situation occur again in future, they should take steps to ensure that members of the public are made aware of the council's role and limitations and manage expectations appropriately;
• in light of the failings identified by Mr C's complaint, undertake a full review into their handling of it to identify what practices, processes or procedures they can put in place to prevent similar failings happening again;
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the handling of his complaint; and
• apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his email.

Summary

Mr and Mrs A, who are private landlords, leased properties to tenants introduced to them by the council's social work department. They said that at the end of these leases, their properties were in a state of disrepair. Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A that the council had made a verbal agreement that, when recommending tenants, the council would reinstate the properties to their pre-letting condition when the tenancies ended. He also complained that the council had withheld information about the tenants and during the tenancies, and had failed to supervise the tenants.

While we recognised that Mr C said that a verbal commitment had been given in relation to the tenants, our investigation found no evidence that any commitment had been given to supervise or to agree to reinstate the properties at the end of the tenancies. In addition we found no evidence that the council had withheld information that Mr and Mrs A were entitled to see.

Summary

When Mr C's aunt moved into a nursing home, the council provided interim funding for her fees until they could complete the appropriate financial assessment. Once this was done, they tried to recover the cost from Mr C. He complained that there was confusion about how much was owed. The council investigated and upheld Mr C's complaint. They found three main errors. They had originally charged for an additional week's care, requiring the invoice to be amended; and the nursing home had charged the council at an outdated rate for part of this time and the invoice again had to be reissued. Finally, there was a numerical typing error in one of the council's letters which meant that the amount shown as the balance owed was wrong.

We noted the problems that they had found, and what they had done to address these. However, we also found another error in the correspondence. The council had written to Mr C's solicitor to explain that the weekly rate changed on 1 April 2013. They then wrote to him again less than two weeks later to say that the change took effect from 8 April 2013. Taking everything into account, we upheld Mr C's complaint. As, however, the council had provided documentary evidence to show what they had already done to prevent this from happening again, we made only one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the confusion in their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council handled a complaint he made about social work involvement with him and his family. He was unhappy that the council asked him to restrict the information he wanted to present to a social work complaints review committee (CRC) and said that the council allowed the CRC to take place knowing that it would be unable to address the details of his complaint. He also complained that the council had referred him to the SPSO inappropriately and that a council manager involved in investigating his stage two complaint had also been involved in the social work decision-making.

We took the view that the council did not request this to try to prevent Mr C from putting forward his detailed arguments. It was intended as helpful advice, given their knowledge of CRCs and how they operate. The request was, however, worded in such a way that they asked (rather than advised) him to restrict the amount of information he presented to the CRC. The council were able to give him advice, but our view was that only the members of the CRC itself could ask him to restrict his submission and so we upheld this element of his complaint. We did not uphold his other complaints. We found that Mr C was given the opportunity to speak about this in full at the CRC and that CRC members had access to his full submission. There was, therefore, no evidence that they were unable to consider his complaints sufficiently and robustly. We also took the view that the council acted correctly by referring Mr C to the SPSO, in line with their obligations under the SPSO Act, and the evidence we saw did not support his view that the manager was involved in investigating the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back to the relevant committee services staff that, while the council can advise a complainant, only the CRC themselves can request that a complainant restricts their submission.

Summary

Mr C was concerned about the development of a piece of land near his home. The council had given planning permission for development of the site, with certain conditions attached. Just before the time limit on this consent expired, some work was carried out on the site, after which the council confirmed that the developer had discharged their responsibilities under the planning conditions. Mr C complained to the council that this decision was unreasonable, and that they had not made relevant documents available to the public as required by legislation. The council responded to Mr C's complaints, but he remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

Our investigation found that the council had acted in line with legislation and procedure in deciding whether the conditions had been discharged. They had not, however, made all relevant documents available as they should have done so we upheld that element of the complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaints, but we decided this had been reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind their staff that they must ensure that all relevant parts of the planning register are available to the public as required in legislation.

Summary

Mrs C applied to the council for assistance through a community care grant. This is available to help people on a low income live independently in the community and is paid out of the Scottish Welfare Fund, which is a national scheme delivered by local authorities. Mrs C applied to the scheme mainly for help with purchasing household items, including carpets and curtains. The council decided not to award Mrs C assistance for carpets and curtains because they said her circumstances did not match the situation with which community care grants were set up to help. They said she purchased the items herself before the decision on her application was made, and pointed out that they normally awarded items in goods, not cash.

Mrs C complained about the way the council handled her application. She said she was not told that, if her application was successful, the award for carpets and curtains would be in goods. She also said the council failed to appropriately respond to her complaint.

We listened to a copy of the recording of Mrs C's phone call in which she applied for assistance. This confirmed that she was not told that if her application was successful the council would provide the relevant items. We noted that both the council's decision makers guide and Scottish Government guidance confirm that the council are entitled to decide whether to make such awards in goods or cash. However, the council should have clearly explained this to Mrs C at the start. Also, after listening to the call, we found that the call handler was often vague when trying to explain what the council needed from Mrs C to progress her application, and their position often conflicted with the information in the Scottish Government guidance. We also found that the call handler commented inappropriately about other benefits that Mrs C received. In light of this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council's handling of her application was poor.

In addition, when responding to Mrs C's complaint, the council wrongly told her she was advised when she applied that any award would be provided as goods, and that they could find no evidence of call handlers asking unnecessary questions. As already noted, the tape of the call evidenced that she was not told how any grant would be made, and we were concerned by the call handler's approach and line of questioning. Because of that, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council did not respond appropriately to her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified with the handling of Mrs C's application;
• make a time and trouble payment - from the council's own budget - in recognition of the significant customer service failings identified with the handling of Mrs C's application for a community care grant;
• revise any community care grant publications to ensure it is clearly explained that the council have discretion in deciding whether to award goods or cash;
• apologise to Mrs C for failing to respond appropriately to her complaint; and
• reflect on the response provided to Mrs C's complaint and feed back to the Ombudsman any actions taken as a result of that.

Summary

Mrs C and Mr D both owned property next to land for which a planning application for development was submitted and approved. During the period of consultation on the application Mrs C was given access to the council's planning file, including a business plan submitted as part of the application. Mrs C and Mr D submitted objections to the application, but work subsequently began on the development, including closing a road so that passing places could be built.

Mrs C and Mr D both complained to the council that the report had not been reasonable in dealing with a number of council policies, national guidance and the business plan, that the passing places had not been built in line with council standards, that the road closure had not been undertaken in line with council guidance and that a letter Mrs C had submitted was not responded to within a reasonable timescale. The council responded saying that the report was reasonable, that Mrs C should not have been given access to the business plan, that the passing places and the road closure had been in line with relevant standards and guidance. They agreed that they had not met their service standards in regard to the response to Mrs C's letter.

Mrs C and Mr D were not satisfied and raised their complaints with us. We looked at these complaints together. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the report had been reasonable, that the passing places had been built in line with the relevant standards and that the road closure had been undertaken in line with the relevant guidance. We did not uphold these complaints. We upheld the complaint about the time taken to respond to Mrs C's letter but, as the council had apologised for this and had reminded staff involved about their customer service standards to ensure that there was no recurrence of this, we made no recommendations.