Local Government

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about how the council handled a planning application to vary a condition that had been imposed on a previously granted planning permission. Mr C was unhappy that the council had accepted supporting information provided by the applicant without requesting further evidence from them. He also complained that as the original application had been granted on appeal, the new application should have been referred back to the Scottish Government.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found no fault in the council's handling of the application. The information provided by the applicant, while useful, was not material in the determination of the application and so the council did not require any further evidence of proof. We found no evidence that the council failed to take account of all relevant material considerations. There was also no requirement on the council to refer the application to the Scottish Government.

Summary

Mr C is a holder of a disability blue badge, and had applied to the council for a disabled parking bay to be marked out in front of his home. The council had also just received a similar request from a blue badge holder in the house opposite. The area committee agreed that both bays should be placed on the street, but on the opposite side to Mr C's home. Mr C was not happy with the council’s consideration of that request. He complained to us and we gave our decision (201000579) in 2011. We made six recommendations, including that the council should provide the committee with a new report on the two applications. The area committee reconsidered the matter in September 2011 and agreed that the issue should be the subject of a Road Traffic Regulation Order (RTRO) consultation.

After the consultation, the committee confirmed that both parking bays should be marked out on the opposite side of the street. Mr C had, meanwhile, again complained to the council and to us about the process under which his request was being considered. His complaint to us contained five elements; that since our previous decision was issued, the council had failed to deal appropriately with his application; that the second report prepared for the area committee was not fit-for-purpose and misled the committee; that his complaints to the council were not investigated appropriately, and they did not answer his complaints satisfactorily; and that the council made unsubstantiated accusations and allegations against Mr C and his wife, and gave them no right to refute or rebut these.

As we considered that the council had complied with our previous recommendations by October 2011, we did not uphold Mr C’s first complaint. Our investigation found that the report to the area committee was fit-for-purpose but that it did mislead with regard to the circumstances of the other applicant. We did not uphold the remaining three complaints, as we did not find any fault in the way the council dealt with these issues.

Summary

Mr C had experienced periods of homelessness in recent years and complained to us that the council had failed to offer him housing, although he had been in temporary accommodation for a number of months. He said that the council were not dealing with his homeless application properly.

In response to our investigation enquiry, the council advised us that they were in the process of making an offer to Mr C, and shortly afterwards, confirmed that he had been offered and accepted permanent housing. We considered this an appropriate resolution to Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that her child's school did not follow procedures for dealing with bullying and did not respond to parents' concerns about her child being bullied. She said that the council did not ensure that anti-bullying policies and procedures were in place and being followed by the school. The council had not upheld her complaints about this and she also considered that the council had not responded to, or adequately investigated, these.

We upheld all Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had a comprehensive and detailed policy but had not ensured that the school were following this, as the school did not have their own policy as the council required. There was also little evidence of logging bullying incidents as required and, when the school revisited their decision about adopting a school policy, attempts to engage parents were not effective. We also found that, in handling the complaint, the council did not refer to the complaints handling procedure and its stages and did not record or communicate the outcomes of a meeting held with Ms C to investigate and resolve the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to ensure that appropriate anti-bullying policy and procedures were followed by the school;
• consider how they monitor the implementation of the anti-bullying policy and take an active role in ensuring meaningful engagement with parents, pupils and staff on anti-bullying strategies; and
• apologise for not handling and investigating the complaint adequately.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unfairly prevented him from seeing his child during the school lunch hour and that their response to his complaint was confused and contradictory. Mr C said that this was particularly unfair as at the time this was his only opportunity to see his children as his estranged wife would not abide by the contact arrangements ordered by the court. Mr C also complained that the council’s response to his complaint contained a number of errors and that he had not been properly involved in the investigation of his complaint. He felt that this showed a lack of care by the council and that his complaint had not been properly investigated.

We carefully considered all the information provided, including the council’s policies about parental involvement in their children’s education when parents have separated. Our investigation found that the council did not have a clear policy covering requests by parents to visit their children during the school day in these circumstances. As a result, council and school staff had given Mr C confusing and contradictory advice.

Although there were typographical errors in the council’s response letter, these were relatively minor and did not affect the conclusion reached. We found the council’s response inadequate, as it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the contradictory advice that Mr C had received. The council had already explained to us that they intended to change their complaints policy after reflecting on this investigation. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise in writing for the inconsistent information provided;
• provide us with evidence that they have reviewed and updated their 'Policy on the Contact between Parents and Schools including non-resident parents' as advised to us;
• provide us with evidence that the updated policy on parental contact has been disseminated to all head teachers, highlighting the changes to the document; and
• apologise in writing for failing to respond adequately to Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended a community consultation session about a town centre regeneration plan. He later complained that a council officer did not include his comments in a summary document. Mr C also questioned the motives behind the officer's decision not to include his comments. After complaining to the council, he approached us with his concerns about the length of time they took to respond to his complaint, the fact that they referred to his role as a newly elected member of the council and because in their final response they did not give him details of his right to bring his complaint to us. The council had explained to Mr C that the officer felt that the comments did not contribute to the consultation, either in a positive or negative way, and that this was why they were not included. Mr C pointed out that the council had included other comments which could also not be considered to contribute in any way to the exercise.

Our investigation reviewed the supporting documentation, and found no evidence to suggest that the council's decision not to include the comments was unreasonable. However, we did agree with Mr C that other comments which were included in the summary document could not be said to have contributed to the consultation and we noted that this could lead to a perception of bias. However, Mr C did not suffer any injustice in terms of having his views heard as his comments, in full, were presented to the planning committee, and he had further opportunities to comment before the planning application was considered. We did not, therefore, uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We did uphold his complaint about the time the council took to respond to his complaint, and their failure to provide referral rights to us. We noted, however, that the council were correct to point out that a change of status to councillor would change the relationship with the council and its officers, and would have an impact on how they examine a complaint such as this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in responding to his complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C’s twin children attended a local primary school but were placed in separate classes. Mr and Mrs C considered that one of their children had been subjected to bullying by classmates over an extended period since late 2011. Unhappy about the way the head teacher of the school had handled the matter, they asked the council’s education service to intervene, and in early 2012 a council quality improvement officer chaired a meeting in the school. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs C reported various other incidents in the summer term and, dissatisfied with the education service’s handling of the matter, they complained to the service.

Mr and Mrs C made six complaints to us. We did not uphold two of these: that the education service unreasonably failed to follow disciplinary procedures to prevent the bullying of their child or that the education service unreasonably failed to implement agreed support measures to assist their child. We upheld the remaining four complaints, one of which was that the school unreasonably failed to return a phone call when Mr and Mrs C had taken the step of withdrawing their child from school. The other three complaints related to complaints handling and the sharing of information about the education service’s investigation and notes of two meetings Mr and Mrs C attended with officers during the investigation process.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the deficiencies in the handling of their complaints identified in our investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council delayed carrying out an emergency repair on the window of the communal hallway at his home. He also complained that they failed to compensate him under the terms of the Right to Repair scheme for the delay in repairing the window and to comply with their responsibilities to regularly paint the communal stairway.

Our investigation found that the repair did not qualify for compensation under the Right to Repair scheme as it was a repair to a communal area. We also found that although the original tenancy agreement indicated that the council would paint the stairway every five years, they had since signed the Scottish Secure Tenancy agreement, and that stair painting could now only be carried out when agreement was reached with all owners. The council demonstrated to us that they had tried to get other residents to agree to this work. However, we did find that, as the council accepted that the broken window had affected their tenant and carried out the repair, they should have done so when it was first brought to their attention. For this reason, and because their joiner failed to properly board up the window, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in repairing the window.

Summary

Mrs C lives in an area served by a passenger ferry service. Mrs C and a number of other users were concerned about the re-tendering exercise for this service. This was carried out by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) who were responsible for subsidising the service. Mrs C complained that SPT failed to provide adequate specification in the tender documents that the vessel to be deployed should be of modern public transport quality, and awarded the contract to the successful bidder primarily with regard to savings in costs and not on passenger safety and comfort. She also said that SPT had not fully responded to questions that she and others raised.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the tender documents had specified a size and class of vessel, and required that the vessel deployed should be licensed by the Marine and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for safety and seaworthiness purposes. The successful bidder was not required to supply a new or modern vessel. The incumbent operators, who had been using a vessel built in 2007, were unsuccessful in their bid by a substantial margin. We also noted that the award of the contract had been examined separately by Audit Scotland, who had made no criticism of SPT's procurement process.

In response to considerable public interest in the tendering process, SPT had published a question and answer sheet, and had updated this when further questions arose. On balance, we did not uphold this complaint as we found that only two of the six specific questions raised by Mrs C in her correspondence had not received an answer. This was because one was treated as a comment because of the way Mrs C had written it, and the other was a matter for the MCA rather than SPT.

Summary

Mr C was refused planning permission for an extension to his house and the erection of garages and a shed. He asked for a review of the decision, and this was carried out by the local review board at a site visit. The board decided to uphold the decision to refuse the planning permission. They said this was because the proposal did not comply with the local development plan. The decision notice explained that Mr C had a right of appeal to the Court of Session if he wished to question the decision. Mr C complained to us that there had been procedural fault at the local review board, and that there was delay and failure to handle his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

During our investigation we found that some of Mr C's complaints had not been through the councils' complaints procedures. In others, we saw no evidence of fault in the council's handling of the matter. He had complained that the local review board failed to discuss relevant information about his development and were inconsistent in their decision to refuse his application, but we found that the council had investigated and responded to this complaint. In terms of his concerns about the decision, the council said that they considered these were matters for appeal to the Court of Session. We are unable to investigate where there is a right of appeal or recourse to the courts.

We found that there was no delay by the council in responding to Mr C's complaint, and that it was handled properly under the council's complaints procedure.