Local Government

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the adequacy of consultation about a review of a particular water management policy for a local area of water. He felt that the council had failed to take reasonable account of opposition that they had received from statutory consultees to the policy review, and had failed to carry out adequate consultation with the public.

During our investigation we found that the policy review was on-going and that no decision had been taken. We were provided with evidence of the level of consultation carried with the public and the level of interaction with the statutory consultees and the action taken in response to the comments received from the consultees. They had clearly consulted, considered the responses and replied to the complaints, and we found no evidence that the way this was done was inappropriate.

Summary

Ms C had complained to the council about antisocial noise in her building. This had been a problem for some time and she felt that the council had failed to address the underlying issue. A flat that was the source of some of the noise was owned privately with a high turnover of tenants, and Ms C said that this contributed to the ineffectiveness of the council's approach as she felt that it had been addressed on a 'tenant-by-tenant' basis, rather than as a continuing issue. She was also dissatisfied with the way that the council handled her complaint and their responses, and she raised her complaints with us. We explained that we did not have the legal power to address the alleged antisocial behaviour on her behalf. However, we did consider the way that the council had handled her complaints.

Although Ms C questioned the council's reasons for handling matters in a certain way, this in itself, does not automatically mean that they mishandled her complaint. For example, the council had provided explanations and, although Ms C did not agree with them, these had explained the council's position. When we reviewed the correspondence, however, we felt that it indicated that the long-term problems had had a significant and distressing effect on Ms C. We took the view that the council's responses did not appear to have taken this into account, and we noted that there were delays in replying. We found they had also failed to keep Ms C updated about how matters were being progressed and so, on balance, we agreed that the council failed to deal with her complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reflect on their complaints handling at stages one and three, and advise the Ombudsman of any action taken (over and above their new complaints process) to ensure that in future complaints will be handled more appropriately; and
• apologise to Ms C for not keeping her informed of what was happening about her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not tell him that his housing benefit entitlement had been reduced to recover outstanding benefit overpayments. We found from our investigation that, although Mr C could not recall receiving advice about overpayments, the council were able to provide copies of the relevant notices, which were correctly addressed. They also confirmed that the notices had not been returned undelivered. Mr C told us that he had been unaware that he had a duty to inform the council of any change in his circumstances which might affect his benefit claim. We were, however, satisfied that this information was available to claimants, and there was no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to notify Mr C of the overpayment.

Summary

Mr C made an application to the Scottish Welfare Fund for a crisis grant but the council refused this because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C asked for the decision to be reviewed, because he was waiting for his benefit application to be processed. After the review, the council told Mr C the original decision would not change and no award would be made. Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his application. In particular, he said the council's communication was poor; there was an unreasonable delay in processing his second tier review (a further review by a panel who are not part of the Fund team); and the guidance was not followed properly.

We examined what happened in Mr C's case against the relevant guidance from the Scottish Government, and upheld his complaints. Our investigation found that the council did not explain the evidence that Mr C should put forward when requesting a review, and had not responded to the concerns he raised in his request for a review. The guidance says the applicant should understand why a decision has been made. Mr C was also not told when the panel would consider his second tier review or about his right to see the documents that would be considered. The council also accepted there was a delay in processing that review. They said his letter requesting this was misfiled into his housing benefit file. Finally, the council told Mr C his application was refused because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. However, the guidance clearly states the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant is the severity of the applicant's situation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the additional failings identified.

Summary

The council carried out an informal consultation exercise in respect of their schools, looking at a number of options, including possible closures and mergers. Ms C complained that the consultation included her local rural primary school. She said that there was an agreed moratorium (temporary delay) on proceeding with statutory consultations for the closure of such schools and, because of this and a recent legal case, she complained it was not appropriate for the school to be included. She also raised concerns that the council did not consult appropriately with the community and failed to highlight the potential loss of grant funding and increased transport costs when assessing the options.

We noted that the moratorium was in place while the commission for the delivery of rural education carried out a review on the closure of rural schools. However, this related specifically to progressing closures through the formal statutory consultation stage, which was not the case here. The council exercise was a review of their whole school estate and we did not consider it unreasonable that they included this school in that. Any eventual decision to proceed with closure, once the implications of the commission's report and the legal case had been considered, would still need to be taken through the statutory consultation process. Our investigation found that the council's consultation on the future of the school estate was comprehensive, and involved stakeholders such as parent councils as well as surveying the opinions of the general public. We also considered the financial information provided by officers when considering the options, but found no evidence to suggest that they misrepresented the financial case for this school. The impact of any decision on grant funding was clearly detailed in reports and they had included transport costs when assessing the overall potential cost implications.

As we found no evidence to suggest that the council's informal consultation was unreasonable, that the consultation exercise was flawed or that the financial implications for the school were misrepresented, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C objected to a planning application submitted to the council for an extension to a building. He complained to us that the council refused to accept his further representations but allowed the applicant to make some, which he thought was unfair. We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the further submissions from the applicant appeared to have been considered as supporting information, and did not change the nature of the proposal.

Mr C also complained that the council's system for providing public online access to planning documents was faulty, and that it continued to be a problem. Our investigation found that the council had not failed to provide relevant information online, but we suggested that it might be beneficial for them to look at whether their planning portal could be improved. We did find that they failed to acknowledge and respond to an email that Mr C had sent about his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to acknowledge and respond appropriately to his email.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a school had unreasonably excluded her child. She also complained that they offered a mediation session to allow her to discuss this but, when she went to it staff refused to listen to her side of the story or to allow her child to attend. She was also unhappy about the way the council dealt with her complaint about this.

The council said that they had offered the mediation session to ensure that appropriate support was in place to allow her child to return to school and that they had made clear to Mrs C that the meeting was not held to discuss the exclusion. They also said that they had dealt with her subsequent complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

We found that, although the council offered the mediation meeting in order to try and ensure that Mrs C's child returned to school as quickly as possible and were trying to help resolve this, they incorrectly told Mrs C that the mediation meeting and complaint were an alternative to the appeals process. This was not the case, and there is a separate statutory process that considers appeals against school exclusions. We concluded that the council provided Mrs C with misleading information. In terms of her complaint, we found no evidence to suggest that the school failed to take her concerns seriously or failed to investigate every allegation she made. We did, however, conclude that they failed to address all her complaints as they had said that they could not look at new issues she raised with them after concluding her original complaints. As a result of these failings, we upheld her complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the misleading advice;
• ensure that they respond to all points of complaint and that any new and separate issues are duly investigated; and
• inform Mrs C of the steps she should take if she still wishes to formally appeal against her child's exclusion, making sure they fully explain what this process will involve.

Summary

Mrs C's child had suffered verbal abuse, physical assault and bullying on social media. Mrs C complained that the school did not follow anti-bullying policies, and that the council's policy did not provide adequate protection. She said that the school and the council had not taken enough steps to protect her child. The council responded that they were reviewing their policy, but that was a year after Mrs C had first raised her concerns.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint and made a number of recommendations, as our investigation found that policy and procedures were not followed, no action had been taken in relation to evidence of bullying on social media, and evidence of a serious incident had not been kept. We also found that the council had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the adequacy of their anti-bullying policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not ensuring that anti-bullying policy and procedures were followed;
• review anti-bullying staff training in light of the potential abuse of social media and actions that staff should take in such cases to ensure all staff are clear about their responsibilities when bullying is reported;
• consider how they could encourage schools to use specific incidents of bullying as learning opportunities for pupils within the curriculum;
• share the findings of our investigation with relevant staff; and
• consider the adequacy of their anti-bullying policy and their advice to schools.

Summary

Miss C complained to us because she was dissatisfied with the way the council had investigated her complaints about a teacher at her son’s former school.  She said that her son had been bullied, and was not satisfied that the school were doing enough to recognise the problem.  Miss C had since placed her son in another school.  Although the council had said he could return to the original school, she felt that this could not happen without an apology from the teacher, and recognition by the council of their fault in the way they handled the matter.  The complaint that we looked at, however, was only about how the council handled the matter, as we are excluded from looking directly into the internal affairs in an educational establishment run by a local authority.

We did not uphold Miss C’s complaints.  She said that the council’s investigation was flawed in failing to answer any of her questions about the way she had been treated by the teacher, but we saw nothing to suggest that procedures were not properly followed, or that there was any omission in the response she was given.  Miss C was concerned that the council’s investigating officer did not tell her that she was about to leave the council, but the council told us that there was no reason for the member of staff to do so.  We agreed that this was the case, and that the investigation was conducted thoroughly.  It was completed in a short time scale, and this too had caused Miss C concern, but again we found no suggestion that this had any effect on the quality of the investigation.  She also felt that she should have been given an opportunity to discuss the council’s findings but we found that they had correctly signposted her to us under their complaints procedure, after they completed their investigation.

Summary

The owners of the yard next to Mr C's house submitted a planning application for the replacement and relocation of their boiler house and drying kilns. Mr C complained that, although the application was approved with conditions attached to the permission, the council failed to enforce those conditions. He said that as a consequence he had suffered horrendous noise levels. Mr C alleged that the council failed to assess the impact of the planning consent on his home, failed to follow the correct procedures and pursue enforcement action, and failed to assess his subsequent complaint properly.

The complaint was investigated and we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We made further enquiries of the council, and gave all the relevant information (including planning documentation and all the complaints correspondence) careful consideration. The planning adviser said that the council acted reasonably and early by ensuring that a noise impact assessment report was obtained for the proposed development and was reflected in the conditions attached to the planning permission. When some of the conditions were not met, the council considered taking enforcement action but decided that it would be more appropriate to have their environmental health department lead on the matter of noise nuisance. The planning adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable decision, as enforcement action is discretionary and the environmental health department could use statutory measures to address matters that might otherwise be outside the scope of the planning authority. He noted that the council had retained the option of taking enforcement action should they wish to pursue it in the future.

Mr C undoubtedly suffered noise nuisance and we found that the council acted on his complaints about this, although not in the way he would have wished. We did not uphold his complaint, as it could not be said that they did not understand his complaint or failed properly to assess it.