Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to resolve a range of problems he had with the wet electric central heating system that they had installed in his property. These included leaking radiators; the boiler being too small, and not working; heating thermostats burning out; hot water not coming up to temperature; and the times at which the heating came on and off. He also complained that the cost of running the system was too high.

The council had responded to each maintenance request within their timescales for such repairs. They also arranged for the installers and the manufacturers of the system to visit Mr C and ensure that it was working appropriately. Their energy officer also visited to provide energy efficiency advice, and the council contacted an energy assistance organisation to provide Mr C with further information and advice, and to ensure that Mr C was on the correct electricity tariff. Mr C's property is also due to have additional insulation installed within the next year.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had responded appropriately to each of the maintenance issues raised, and had taken reasonable action to help him reduce electricity costs. We noted that they had involved a range of agencies trying to resolve Mr C's concerns, and found no evidence that the central heating system was not working appropriately.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council were seeking to recover council tax and penalty charges from her that related to the year 1999. She said that she had paid all outstanding debts and that, although she could not prove this, neither could the council prove that she did not make payment.

We considered the information she provided and information obtained from our enquiries to the council. Councils do not usually keep copies of all correspondence in respect of historic debts, and in this case the council were able to show us that they issued a council tax bill and reminders at the time, as required by the regulations. As they were able to show that Ms C was billed at the time, and as they had no record of payment being received, we found no evidence that they failed to comply with their responsibilities under the council tax regulations. As there was no evidence of administrative failure in the way this matter was dealt with, we could not uphold the complaint.

Summary

In 2007 Mr C was granted planning permission for a development. He understood that a social housing contribution was required to activate the permission and paid this. He never undertook the development and a subsequent planning application superceded it in 2011. By this point the council's policy had changed and social housing contributions were no longer sought. Mr C requested that his contribution be refunded to him. The council declined to make any refund and told Mr C that the contribution had been an alternative to a section 75 agreement being made (this is a legal agreement that covers financial contributions to meet services and infrastructure needs of the local community associated with a new development).

Mr C complained to us that the council had not advised him of the option to enter into a section 75 agreement. However, we did not uphold his complaint as our investigation found that among the evidence gathered in this case was a letter from him to the council indicating that he had been aware that the contribution was an alternative to entering into a section 75 agreement.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about actions of the social work department in relation to his son. He was dissatisfied with the council's responses and raised his complaints with us.

We decided that the council's responses to his complaints was not reasonable, as their letters were unclear on how appeal requests would be dealt with and did not respond to a specific enquiry that he made. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to his complaints correspondence; and
• ensure that information in complaints responses about appeals is clear.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaints about noise from a nearby factory, in particular their handling of her concerns about night-time noise. Mrs C was also concerned about how they dealt with her complaint about their handling of the matter.

During our investigation we received evidence of the council's investigations in response to the complaints of noise nuisance, including carrying out noise measurements inside Mrs C's property. The council explained that, while they recognised that the noise disturbed Mrs C, they were unable to take any formal action as they were unable to establish that a statutory noise nuisance existed. The council had worked with the owner of the factory to carry out works on a voluntary basis but unfortunately these had not helped.

On balance, we upheld the complaint about the council's complaints handling, as we found that they failed to handle Mrs C's initial concerns in line with their complaints procedure. We noted, however, that their later handling of the complaint was in line with their procedure, and we were satisfied that they responded reasonably to the issues she raised, so we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations about this.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to acknowledge and respond to his online complaints about water drainage in his street.

During our investigation, we looked at information provided by Mr C, and at the council’s records. We found that the council took practical steps to resolve the issue underlying the complaints, in terms of trying to deal with the drainage problem. However, their records, to some extent, gave a confusing picture of how Mr C’s complaints were handled. We upheld his complaint, as we took the view that the council should have been aware that Mr C’s complaints required a formal answer, which they failed to provide.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to respond formally to his resubmitted complaints; and
• review how this matter has been dealt with, in order to learn lessons.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to uphold a public right of way, following works by a landowner. These works meant that a channel of water that could previously be crossed on foot had been deepened. Although the council had provided details of an alternative route, Mr C complained that they had failed to uphold the right of way. He also complained that the alternative route was blocked by various fences and so was impassable.

When we reviewed the correspondence, we found that Mr C had not complained to the council about the fences that he alleged blocked the alternative route. The law does not normally permit us to investigate a complaint until it has fully completed the council’s complaints procedure (unless we do not consider it reasonable to expect this). As we considered this to be a serious allegation, we felt that it would be appropriate and reasonable for the council to firstly have a chance to respond. Although we did not consider that point further in determining Mr C’s complaint, we made a recommendation that they should do so.

When we considered the rest of Mr C's complaint, we found that the fundamental issue he was complaining about related to the council’s legal obligations under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. We can only look at what happened in terms of administration and cannot rule on legality, which is a matter for the courts. We reviewed the information that the council gave Mr C about possible alternative access, and on balance, did not consider that there had been an administrative failing on their part. Although we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint, we made a further related recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• respond to Mr C's allegation that the alternative access is impassable; and
• confirm to the Ombudsman that they have, as detailed in a letter to Mr C, contacted the property owner to remind them of their obligations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s handling of three planning applications. He said that the applicant had originally claimed that a number of people, including Mr C, supported all three applications. Mr C, however, said that he had supported only one (smaller) application. The police were still conducting an investigation into this when the council granted planning permission. Mr C questioned the transparency of the council’s decision.

Our investigation found that the information about the level of support for the applications came to light after the planning reports were prepared and they had to be amended. However, the copies on the council’s website were not updated properly and so Mr C questioned whether or not the committee, when they decided to grant permission, had considered the accurate reports. The council acknowledged that their website was out of date and said that this was an administrative error. They said that this did not mean that the committee had considered out of date information and explained that the matter was specifically brought to the chair’s attention at the start of the meeting. They also explained that they had taken legal advice and were told that, on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty', the applications should be decided despite the ongoing police investigation.

Although the council provided the original and updated paperwork, there was no documentary evidence that could confirm exactly what papers the committee had considered. In addition, the legal advice had been given verbally, so there was no documentary record of what had been said. Although we upheld Mr C’s complaint that incorrect information was made available online, we did not find that the council had unreasonably determined the applications. They had taken legal advice and, from an administrative perspective, took a decision that they were entitled to take (although we did recommend that they keep records of such advice in future).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider making contemporaneous records of verbal legal advice to ensure a clear audit trail; and
• update their website to reflect the accurate reports considered by the committee (in both the planning and committee sections).

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not reasonably investigated and responded to his concerns about what he considered to be discriminatory treatment of his child by a teacher. He complained that the school had allowed the practice to continue and also believed that incidents and meetings/contact with school staff to discuss his concerns were not logged or recorded.

We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council had carried out a reasonable investigation, considered all available evidence and responded to the issues raised. We also found, however, that the school had not recorded incidents and contacts in the appropriate way.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not ensuring adequate record-keeping; and
• emphasise to the school the importance of adequate record-keeping.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C’s child was diagnosed with autism. Their child was placed in a primary school, as they had wished, and received 25 hours learning assistance support a week, in the primary two year. There were, however, problems in managing the child's behaviour in class. As the primary three class would be larger, a meeting was held at the primary school during the summer, attended by Mr and Mrs C, their advocate, and various professionals. They discussed the child's imminent transfer and issues that school staff were having with managing the child's behaviour.

Mr and Mrs C’s child started primary three in a mainstream class but the following month the head teacher decided that the child's schoolday should be reduced to five hours, with two learning assistants supporting the child together. During the year, following further incidents, the head teacher excluded the child, and called Mr and Mrs C in for a meeting. Mrs C attended and after discussing matters with her husband, told the head teacher that they would not accept the terms set out for readmittance. Their child did not return to the primary school, and Mr and Mrs C appealed to an exclusion appeals committee. After the committee met, Mr and Mrs C were offered ,and eventually accepted, a place elsewhere.

Our investigation upheld Mr and Mrs C’s complaints that the council failed to take the appropriate steps in following their exclusion process and, in particular, that an out-of-date leaflet had been issued and that the council failed to keep adequate records. We did not uphold their complaints that the council failed to follow a clear plan for their child's inclusion, that staff had unreasonably restrained their child, and that the council had unreasonably pressured Mr and Mrs C into sending a placing request.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review its children and families department's current procedures for convening meetings similar to that held in Mr and Mrs C's case, to ensure that adequate notice is given, the agenda specified, the duration estimated and appropriate caveats given about the scope of note taking; and
• provide confirmation that steps have been taken to ensure that all obsolete information sheets on the process of appeal against exclusion have been destroyed and replaced with the current document.