Local Government

Summary

Mrs C moved back to the council's area to care for family. She accepted the council’s offer of an upper villa flat which had an intercom service to wardens in a nearby sheltered housing complex, although she was fit and active and had no need of the service. The council upgraded the intercom service at the start of 2012. Mrs C then began to be disturbed each morning with switchovers of warden shifts and an early call from the wardens to her downstairs neighbour, who was deaf. This caused her stress and she requested a house transfer. When Mrs C complained, the council disconnected her intercom service and insulated the cable conduit to reduce noise leakage between the two flats. The remaining problem was a matter of acoustic noise transference of conversations between the two properties.

Our investigation did not find grounds to uphold Mrs C’s complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with the problems of the intercom system but in the circumstances, given Mrs C’s wish to move, we made a recommendation to address her concerns.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• invite Mrs C to an interview with their letting centre to explore the possibilities of a mutual exchange and other housing options.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of two planning applications. He said that the planning report contained inaccuracies and had not dealt with issues of window distances, subdivision of land and loss of amenity. He also said that archaeological and tree survey requirements were not undertaken. Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of enforcement matters at the site.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council's actions were reasonable and they had dealt with the applications properly. We were also satisfied that the council's position that there were no archaeological issues in this case was reasonable and we found no evidence of fault in relation to the council's decision that there was no need for a tree survey. Finally, we were satisfied that the action the council took in dealing with the enforcement matters raised by Mr C was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C said that a planning application was made to infill a small building site, which was approved by the council's area planning committee, subject to conditions. Shortly afterwards, he wrote to the planning department saying that the applicant for permission had provided incorrect information, particularly about ownership, and that the application should be declared invalid. The council looked into this but confirmed that the planning permission stood. Mr C complained that, despite his continued representations on the matter, the council took the view that although they had a duty to take action where an offence had occurred, the situation was not clear cut. They had said that they did not believe the applicant had knowingly and recklessly made incorrect statements. They said they had attempted to establish the situation but the applicant had declined to provide more detail - if the land was owned by someone other than the applicant, he would be unable to build, and ownership rights were a matter for the courts.

As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a planning adviser. This confirmed that an applicant does not have to own the land for which they seek planning permission and that after receiving Mr C's allegations, the council had taken appropriate and reasonable action in the event that the applicant wished to reconsider his position.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to deal correctly with his representations about the application and said that rather than dealing with them in terms of planning, he was required to make a formal complaint through the council's complaints and feedback procedure. We looked at this procedure, and how the council had acted in relation to it, and found that the council had followed their policy.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the way in which the council handled her representations against a planning application, which she submitted after the cut-off date. She was dissatisfied that, after being told that late representations would be taken into account, hers were not considered by the committee that looked at the application.

During our investigation we found that while there was no statutory requirement to accept late representations, the council had, in an attempt to be helpful, circulated these to elected members. As the planning department had received Mrs C's representations after the committee agenda was circulated, it was decided not to copy these to the committee. However, staff had read them to confirm that they raised no new information or material issues that would significantly alter the assessment and recommendation in relation to the planning application. While the council accepted that there had been a breakdown in communication, for which they had apologised, our investigation found that they were not obliged to accept late representations. We also found no evidence that the committee failed to take account of all relevant material considerations before reaching their decision.

In addition, as a result of this case, the council stopped the practice of circulating late letters of objection against a planning application, and said that any late letters would instead be sent to the planning service for review.

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.