Local Government

Summary

Mr C said that the council had not reasonably consulted with him over the timing of major improvement works at his home. Mr C told us that he is a shift worker and often needs to sleep through the day. He said that tradesmen turned up at his home unannounced one Saturday in spite of a prior agreement that work would start the following Monday. The tradesman made noise that woke Mr C up, and he told us that he could not finish his shift later that night. Mr C complained to the council, as he understood that they should have asked his permission before sending tradesmen at a weekend. More tradesmen arrived at Mr C's property the following Saturday. He said that he was not given enough notice of this visit, as a card was only put through the door late on the Friday. Mr C's wife had contacted the council and said she was assured that the work would not go ahead, but the tradesmen still turned up next day. Mr C was also unhappy that workers came after 17:00 to remove scaffolding, and he was repeatedly asked to move his vehicle from the driveway whilst he was having his dinner. He said that when he refused, the scaffolders used lifting equipment to carry the scaffolding over his vehicle.

We upheld Mr C's complaint because tradesmen should not have attended Mr C's property at a time other than had been mutually agreed. We also found that the council missed opportunities to clarify their position in respect of weekend working when they reached an agreement with Mr C about the timing of the work and on receipt of his complaint. However, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. We did not find fault in respect of the visit after 17:00, as there was no evidence that Mr C had been advised that work on site would stop after this, and it appeared to have been an assumption on his part.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had told him they would not deal with his complaint about their insurance third party administrator. We found that the council had not clearly explained to Mr C that they would accept complaints about administrative matters, but not about the decision-making of the administrator. However, we found it reasonable that they did not consider his complaints about the decision-making as this was open to challenge through the courts, and which Mr C subsequently successfully pursued.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that all staff are aware that they can accept complaints about organisations acting on behalf of the council, and can accept complaints about the administrative handling of any insurance claim.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of a family member (Mrs A) about the council's actions in relation to pre-school contact with Mrs A's son, who has special educational needs. Mrs C complained that the pre-school home visiting service did not reasonably attempt to contact Mrs A after a referral from a speech and language therapist, and that the educational psychology service did not undertake actions in line with an agreement with Mrs A.

Following investigation we did not uphold the complaint about contact as we found evidence that they did try to contact Mrs A. We did uphold the complaint about the educational psychology service, as we found significant differences between a handwritten agreement provided by Mrs A and the typed version that was subsequently referred to by the council, as well as more general issues around communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs A that the educational psychology service did not provide a reasonable service in relation to the early years assessment process for her son; and
• revise relevant procedures and guidance to ensure that unsuccessful attempts at contact are recorded, that cover letters are provided with copies of reports or assessments sent to parents as part of the early years assessment and that there is consistency in all records made of discussions with parents.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council did not follow the correct procedure when making their decision on a school planning application, which included a biomass boiler. They had concerns about the health implications, and said that the council did not appropriately take account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations. They also complained about the handling of their complaint.

There were environmental issues relating to this planning application, and the council explained that assessment of the application involved two key material considerations – the impact on the amenity of the area and local residents, in particular the visual impact, and the extent to which the facility complied with the guidance and regulations governing the operation and function of biomass boilers and associated emissions. The council also took into account the impact on residential amenity by reason of noise. The council explained that appropriate conditions were included on the planning permission and separate legislation is available to monitor emissions and noise.

In investigating this complaint we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He was satisfied that there were no procedural irregularities, with the exception of an oversight over the stack height. He pointed out, however, that a further assessment makes it clear the proposal falls well within the tolerances for control of emissions from such a stack. He confirmed that there are no grounds under planning policy and procedure for rejecting the biomass plant and stack application on health grounds. Health protection is not a material planning consideration unless there is specific planning guidance on the matter, especially where there are other regulatory frameworks in place to deal with the health impacts. He also noted that the council have policies for the use of biomass as a heating source for schools and that it is clear that the health consequences are not something they would take lightly.

We did not uphold the complaint about the planning decision as we were satisfied that the council took account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations in making their decision, and that they considered the concerns raised. We saw no evidence of anything wrong in the process, and we were satisfied they provided a detailed response to the complaint. However, while we noted that the council were moving between complaint processes at the time, we upheld the complaint about complaints handling as there were delays, a lack of information about what was happening, and a failure to signpost Mr and Mrs C to the next stage. As the council had already recognised these failings, apologised and taken steps to address them, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of his client (Mr A), about a planning application for an extension to an existing waste water treatment plant. Mr A lives close to the treatment plant, for which the council granted planning consent. He complained that the council failed to handle the application properly or effectively and had not taken steps to address his concerns or remedy defects that he had identified.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had taken Mr A's objections into account when processing the application. We were also satisfied that there was no evidence of any fault in the handling of the application. However, we noted that the council had accepted that they failed to provide reasons for their decision to grant the application when they issued their decision notice, and had issued an amended notice attaching a copy of the planning report to explain the reasons for the decision. We were concerned that this meant that an interested party would have to read a number of pages to try to and elicit the specific reasons for the decision. We did not consider that this was a reasonable remedy to the original error in the decision notice, and upheld this complaint. As we were, however, generally satisfied that the council's revised procedures have addressed these failings, we made one recommendation to clarify the information on this decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider adding to the website a paragraph paraphrasing the handling report's arguments, to ensure clarity in this case.

Summary

Ms C submitted a planning application to the council. She was concerned about the comments that her neighbours made on the application. She corresponded with the council about this and remained dissatisfied at the end of their complaints procedure. She complained to us that the council had not reasonably responded to her correspondence. However, our investigation considered the correspondence and we found that their responses were reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to remove loose render (a covering of plaster or cement) from the outside of his property without first discussing this with other property owners. He complained that this caused additional damage to the render, cost more than was reasonable and that the council failed to carry out repairs.

The council had explained to Mr C that they received a report from an occupier (who happened to be a council tenant) of render falling from the top flat onto the gardens below. They inspected the site and determined, for safety reasons, that they needed to use their statutory powers to issue an emergency statutory notice and instruct a contractor to make the site safe. The contractor did so by removing patches of loose render. Whilst they acknowledged Mr C's concerns about the amount of render removed, they explained that their contractor had only removed the render he considered unsafe. Our investigation reviewed the council's actions and found that they had acted appropriately, and in line with their statutory duties when addressing this issue.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about a statutory notice that had been served on his property, and for which the council had told him he was now liable. He was unhappy at having to pay as he said he and his solicitors had tried to find out more from the council about this, both before he bought the property and since, without success. He had a lot of communication with the council about this, and was also unhappy with the advice they gave to solicitors acting on his behalf and how they handled his complaint. He was dissatisfied with the council's responses and complained to us.

We found that the council's responses did not reasonably address his complaints, that their responses to his enquiries about the matter had been unreasonable, and they did not make clear what an apology they provided was related to. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise unambiguously to Mr C for the poor standard of their communication with him;
• reflect on how the situation came about that Mr C was advised that a manager would be made aware of his contacts and would return calls as a matter of urgency at a time when he had been on holiday, and whether action requires to be taken to ensure this cannot be repeated; and
• remind all staff to ensure that all matters raised by complainants are clearly acknowledged and responded to at all stages of the process.

Summary

Mr C, who has a disability, complained about the council's handling of his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. In particular, he complained that the items he had requested should have been identified as high priority and that the decision-making in his case was wrong.

Our investigation considered the Scottish Government’s guidance setting out the process for councils to follow. In Mr C's case, the council had explained to him that they had refused his application because they considered that, based on the information he had provided, there was not a risk of him going into care if the grant was refused. Mr C appealed against this but the council confirmed their decision. Mr C then requested a further review of the decision (second tier review), and it was considered by a panel of people of who did not work for the Scottish Welfare Fund team. After the second tier review, the council decided, as there was new medical information, to award him a grant for one of the items he had requested. We noted that the explanations given by the council for their decision could have been better, but we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C and her sister complained to the council about the care of their late mother (Mrs A). They said that when their mother was discharged from hospital a social worker had unreasonably placed her in a locked dementia ward rather than in a unit for frail elderly people. Their distress was compounded when Mrs A was assaulted by other residents. Mrs C then complained to us about the way the council had handled their complaint, as she said that information about the assaults her mother had been subjected to had been withheld from a committee.

We did not uphold the complaint about information, as our investigation found that the committee had access to all the complaints papers including evidence of the assaults that the council accepted that Mrs A had suffered. However, we did find that there had been unreasonable delay in the handling of Mrs C's complaint.