Local Government

Summary

Ms C alleged that while her son was in his first year at primary school he suffered repeated physical assaults from another child. She complained that, despite her formal complaint, the council failed to take appropriate action and she had to move her son to another school.

To investigate the complaint, we took all the available information from Ms C and the council into account, including the complaints file and correspondence, and the relevant council policies. Our investigation confirmed that over a period of almost six months there had been numerous incidents. However, Ms C's child was not always the victim - on occasion he had been the perpetrator; or the incidents were accidents or involved numerous children. Each time, there was evidence to show that the council took the matter seriously and took appropriate action with reference to the sanctions and advice in their policy. From the next five months there were no incidents reported, but then an event involving a number of children took place. Ms C's son then made a statement to a teacher that resulted in child protection procedures being invoked. Almost immediately afterwards, Ms C removed her son from the school, and he was later transferred to another. As the evidence showed that the council did act on each reported incident, we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C had also complained to the council about the way they had handled her concerns. We upheld her complaint to us about this, as our investigation showed that the procedures applied in responding did not clearly reflect the council's policy. One reply was inconclusive and other letters appeared to show that the council had investigated matters outwith their control, Similarly, a complaint of bullying was only partially upheld despite clear evidence that it had taken place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology to Ms C for failing to handle her complaint appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his family over his dissatisfaction with the council’s investigation into a complaint made about an incident at his daughter’s school sports day. His dissatisfaction was based on his belief that it was partial, questioned the veracity of the family’s account, and did not address the key concerns which had been raised.

Our investigation found that Mr C’s complaint had been investigated properly at both stages of the council’s complaints procedure. The council had considered relevant information, including witness statements, and had interviewed Mr C and his wife. The council had concluded that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding, which had been resolved with the apology offered at the time, and took into account that since the event Mr C’s daughter had changed school and was happy with the move.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to properly investigate his complaints about what he considered to be dangerous fuel handling and storage by a boat operator at the local harbour. He complained that the council had sufficient evidence to show that the boat operator was storing large quantities of fuel at the harbour in inappropriate containers, and was not taking reasonable steps to ensure safe refuelling of his vessels.

We examined the evidence and found that the council were actively investigating the reports. They had reminded the boat operator of his responsibilities in terms of fuel safety and were monitoring the situation through the CCTV system. The council also prepared a code of conduct which they expect all boat operators to follow, and were in the process of recruiting a seasonal harbour master to monitor both adherence to the code of conduct and boat safety. As a result of the steps taken by the council, we were satisfied they had acted appropriately following receipt of Mr C's concerns about the unsafe handling of fuel.

Summary

Mr C represents a number of local residents opposed to an ongoing planning application. He wrote to the council with concerns about the lack of a transport assessment in relation to the application. Mr C did not believe the council had responded to his letter. When the council clarified the items of correspondence that they believed responded to the letter, Mr C was dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us.

After discussing this with Mr C we decided that the only matter we could consider was the failure to address points in his letter. We tried to resolve this with the council, but Mr C remained dissatisfied and resubmitted his complaint to us. We decided that the council had not reasonably addressed some of the concerns Mr C had raised and that it was unreasonable that they had not identified this until we became involved.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C that their responses to his letter and subsequent related contact were not reasonable;
• provide a reasonable response to Mr C's enquiries; and
• review their practice to ensure that correspondence querying the relevance of their complaint responses is properly considered without the need for SPSO involvement.

Summary

Mrs C rents out a flat, which she purchased over ten years ago. Three years after she bought it, the council issued an invoice for an emergency repair to the building. The statutory notice that they had given about this repair pre-dated her purchase, and Mrs C’s solicitors told her that this was not in the information provided by the council during a search before she bought the flat. When her solicitors contacted the collection company dealing with the debt, they were told that the council had withdrawn the account. No further requests for payment were made.

More recently, during conveyancing for another property, Mrs C discovered that the council had taken legal action against her for payment of the old invoice. She paid this, but complained to the council that she was not liable, and that they had not contacted her about it before pursuing payment. The council refunded the expenses, interest and fees involved, but refused to also refund the amount of the original invoice for the repair. Mrs C complained to us that the council were unreasonably refusing to do so.

Our investigation found that the council made the payment as a goodwill gesture, in recognition of their mistakes in handling the invoice, including sending it to the wrong address. However, Mrs C was held liable for the amount of the repair because, although she was not the person on whom the statutory notice was originally served, she owned the property when the council issued the account. Any failure in the search undertaken when Mrs C bought the flat was for her to take up with her legal representative, as it appeared that her solicitors did not pursue this with the council when this became known. We did not find that the council had issued the invoice incorrectly, but we did think that they should have explained why a refund for the invoice was not given.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• formally apologise to Mrs C; and
• review the handling of her complaint and whether any lessons can be learned to improve procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council had responded to his representations to have tall trees on council land neighbouring his property trimmed. He was concerned that the trees could be dangerous in high winds, and that they blocked daylight into his property. The council had at one point told him that they would trim or remove trees that were not the subject of a tree preservation order (TPO). When, however, he complained that this had not happened, the council told him that all the trees in the area were in fact the subject of the TPO, and could not be touched. Mr C pursued his complaint, as he believed that the council could trim the trees for maintenance purposes, and was dissatisfied when the council maintained their position and would not trim the trees.

Our investigation found that the council had properly explained to Mr C that they could not trim the trees as it would be an offence to reduce the height of or remove branches from healthy mature trees that were subject to a TPO. The council acknowledged that Mr C had safety concerns about the trees, but said they had been inspected and there was no evidence of disease that might mean they posed a danger. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found no fault in the council’s handling of the matter, although we did think that they could have told Mr C earlier that the TPO applied to the whole area, rather than to individual trees. However, we decided that there were no grounds to pursue the matter further, noting that the council have arranged for their forestry manager to inspect the trees each year, and that they will take immediate action if any tree or branch shows evidence of disease.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about a proposal by the developer of an adjacent site to vary a planning consent. Planning officers had regarded the proposal to vary the consent previously issued (to convert a former school to a care home and construct an extension) as a non-material variation (a material variation is a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest). The officers approved it as a delegated decision without reference to the relevant council committee.

In dealing with the complaint, the council accepted that although the request to vary did not raise new planning issues, and more windows in the new extension would overlook Mr and Mrs C’s rear garden, a corner of the extension had been brought forward 70 centimetres closer to the boundary than the council’s published guidance. In that regard, the request to vary should not have been dealt with as a non-material variation. In light of the council’s acceptance of their error, we upheld the complaint and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the criteria for non-material variation in their procedure note to include the previous history of objections to the assessment of any neighbour interest; and
• confirm that in respect of condition 9 of planning application A that the approved landscaping scheme has been fully implemented and that the additional screening alluded to, if not surviving, is replaced by suitable replacements at the council’s expense.

Summary

Mr C said that the council did not follow their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a refund of phone call costs incurred in reporting repairs.

Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged their failings in this matter, explained what had gone wrong and apologised to Mr C. They said it was clear that a member of staff had not followed the correct procedures, and explained the training the staff member had since received. We upheld the complaint, but did not make any recommendation as the council had already taken appropriate action.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take steps to stop his neighbour from building a shed and decking area which did not have planning permission. When the neighbour then applied retrospectively for permission, Mr C complained that the council accepted poor quality drawings and plans relating to the proposal, that the officer who granted consent failed to carry out a site visit and failed to check the dimensions of the building after it was built. Mr C was also concerned that the building exceeded the permissible dimensions.

Having considered the background information, we found that when Mr C reported to the council that his neighbour was building in his garden, the council promptly carried out a site visit and, having reviewed the construction of a large garden shed, advised the neighbour that planning permission would be required. We noted that by requiring the neighbour to make a retrospective planning application, the council were giving them the opportunity to have the merits of the development considered by the planning department. We found this entirely appropriate. To seek to have the development removed, when it was possible that planning permission would be obtainable, would not have been a reasonable course of action for the council to have taken in this case.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Whilst the drawings which were submitted for the garden shed were not of a quality which would be produced by an architect, we found that they were sufficient for the type of development proposed, and complied with the relevant regulations. The council also provided evidence that they had visited the site and measured the shed. They were satisfied from this visit that the building was constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Although the officer who granted planning consent had not visited the site, a report of the development was produced by a fellow officer who had. Finally, we found no evidence to suggest that the shed exceeded any size restrictions.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following the completion of a new school behind his property, his garden was experiencing flooding during heavy rain. Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of his complaints about this and said that they had unreasonably failed to resolve the problem. He was also unhappy with the council's handling of his representations.

During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had provided evidence that they had taken action in an effort to resolve the problems. While Mr C remained dissatisfied, they were satisfied there was no other work they could reasonably carry out. They had said that maintenance work would be carried out to ensure the drainage system continued to function as designed. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. We did uphold his complaint about how they had handled his representations, as we found evidence that the council had failed to deal with Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their overall handling of the complaint.