Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of the residents of his street about noise disturbance from a nearby construction site. A supermarket was being built, and Mr C's complaints centred around early morning and/or late night working and deliveries; failure to enforce adherence to planning conditions; failure to monitor and/or enforce action on breaches of conditions; failure to address his complaints; and communication issues.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from our planning adviser, concluded that there had been some communication issues and failures in complaints handling. However, on the majority of complaints we found that the council had taken reasonable and proportionate action to monitor the site. When Mr C first complained about early/late working, the council investigated and then issued a notice to restrict the times of certain types of work and/or deliveries to the site. While there were some breaches of these conditions, we found that the monitoring action taken by the council, which included unannounced site visits, was reasonable and proportionate. We upheld two of Mr C's nine complaints, about shortcomings in correspondence and about a council official's meeting with the residents.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failings identified; and
• review the processes for deciding what is a service request and what is a complaint, and ensure that staff are adequately informed of and trained in the application of the processes; also ensure that the complaints literature makes this clear to complainants.

Summary

Mr C complained about school admission arrangements. He said that the council had failed to acknowledge the disruption caused by a change to established admission arrangements, failed to consult with directly affected families or other relevant parties about the changes; and had relied on flawed catchment map evidence. He said that the council had previously admitted children from neighbouring houses to a particular school but that when he applied for a place there for his child, he was told that his home was in fact in the catchment area for another school. Mr C claimed that the previous admissions constituted an 'arrangement' as defined by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Act), and that by altering it, the council were required to consult on it, or to recognise that Mr C's child should have been granted a place.

Defining whether or not the actions of the council constituted an admission arrangement as defined by the Act is a role that can only be performed by a court of law. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that children from Mr C's area had in fact previously been allocated there in error, and that Mr C's home had correctly been identified as in the catchment area for a different school. Mr C also complained that the council had been relying on faulty catchment area maps, and that they could not be certain that his property was not in the catchment area for the school of his choice. In support of this argument he said that the original maps defining catchment areas were damaged. We did not uphold this complaint, after visiting the council and viewing the maps showing catchment areas. We confirmed that the relevant maps did not show Mr A's property to be in the catchment area for his preferred school.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained that an alleged incident of bullying involving their daughter was not handled according to procedure, and that the council failed to fully deal with their complaint. Mr and Mrs C said that neither the school nor the council had followed their own policy in handling the alleged incident. They also said that they had only been told about the incident five weeks after the alleged event, and their daughter said that it had not been discussed with her. An inaccurate letter about bullying had also been kept on their daughter's file.
 

We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the alleged incident was not investigated, the parents were not informed promptly and evidence was not gathered as laid out in both the council's and the school's anti-bullying policies. The school had also not reviewed its policy, as set out in the council's policy. We found that the council's investigation into the matter was inadequate as, although they acknowledged there were significant faults in the process followed by the school, they upheld the decision to retain the disputed letter on file. The evidence provided by the school did not demonstrate that they had followed policy. Additionally the council did not refer Mr and Mrs C to their complaints process, nor explain the stages and timelines they would work to.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to ensure that the anti-bullying policy was followed;
• share the outcome of the investigation with the school;
• review the decision to retain the letter about bullying on Mr and Mrs C's daughter's file;
• consider how they monitor the implementation of council policies; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the way in which their complaint was handled.

Summary

Some six months after the council granted planning consent with conditions for two wind turbines near his home, Mr C found out about the planning application. When he researched the background of the application, he found a defect in the council's referencing of the site on their website. He also thought that there were flaws in the council's handling of noise assessment in the officers' report on the application.

Mr C submitted three complaints against the council, of which we upheld two. Our investigation found that the council's website did contain a flaw. Anyone responding to the public notice of the application and entering the planning case reference on the search page was directed to a site map. This should have been centred on the geographical coordinates of the two turbines, but was actually centred on an unrelated locality several kilometres away. This had not, however, affected Mr C as he had not seen the public notice in time to make representations about this. The council responded to Mr C's concerns by checking some 847 wind turbine applications. They found an error in five of these, took corrective action and offered an explanation. We also found that the officers' report contained errors in distances and directions, which should not have occurred. We did not uphold Mr C's third complaint that the council failed to ensure that an appropriate and accurate noise assessment was carried out before considering the application. Our investigation found that the council had routinely used a simplified method and had imposed appropriate conditions, which had not relied specifically on the figures in the applicant's noise assessment.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind case officers preparing reports on applications of the need to check the accuracy of distances and orientations.

Summary
After an incident involving Mrs C and her teenage daughter, Mrs C and her husband (Mr C) complained to the council about the way that social work services handled matters stemming from the incident. In response to the complaint, the council held a complaints review committee (CRC). Amongst other things, the CRC partly upheld the complaint that the council had not shared all documents with Mr and Mrs C. They recommended that the council's head of children's services and resources should meet with Mr and Mrs C to identify the documents said to be missing and to provide them if appropriate. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that their case was unreasonably progressed to the CRC before the council had provided Mr and Mrs C with all the documents they should have had. They also told us that they still disputed that they had now received all the documents.
 

To investigate this, we obtained all the complaints correspondence and the CRC documentation and made further enquiries of the council. We upheld the complaint as the council did not dispute that they failed to give all the relevant documentation to Mr and Mrs C before the CRC. However, although the council have since provided all the information available, Mr and Mrs C remain adamant that information is still outstanding. We checked the records for the documents they felt were missing, but could not find them. The council said that the documents did not exist, explaining that specific meetings that Mr and Mrs C said took place under the chairmanship of named individuals had not in fact happened. We noted that there were no records of such meetings, but took the view that the council's explanation was reasonable and that it would be disproportionate to pursue this further.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their acknowledged failure to provide relevant documentation in advance of the CRC.

Summary

Mrs C planned to open a food takeaway and sought pre-application advice from the council about this. The council gave advice, which was generally positive about the plan, but made clear that it was given without prejudice to the assessment of a formal planning application. When Mrs C submitted her formal application, it was refused. Mrs C felt the pre-application advice should have alerted her to the basis upon which the application was ultimately refused.

As our investigation found that pre-application advice is not required to be exhaustive and that the advice received in this case was reasonable, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that during a regeneration process the council unreasonably failed to provide information to residents; misinformed them; or changed or denied information given to them about the process and their rights. This included information about 'right to buy'; financial assistance with moving costs; and rehousing options. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably, without telling residents, closed and sealed the bin stores and rubbish chutes in the area, and unreasonably failed to repair street lighting despite requests to do so.

Our investigation found that much of the information provided to residents during the regeneration consultation process and the ongoing regeneration programme was either provided verbally to individuals, or informally at public meetings and open days. For this reason, it was difficult for us to determine what exactly Ms C had been told or promised. Although we, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaints about the information provided on the regeneration process, we made a recommendation to address some of the issues that arose around this process.

We did uphold Ms C's other two complaints. The council had explained that the bin stores and rubbish chutes were closed to prevent vandalism; fire setting; and theft. Although we considered that this was in itself reasonable, we found that the way the council went about it was not, nor were the responses provided to Ms C when she complained. The council told Ms C that the electricity supplier for the area had insisted that the bin stores be sealed up to prevent vandalism and to stop copper wiring being stolen from electrical switching boxes. However, Ms C said that the boxes were not actually in the bin stores but in cupboards next to them. During our investigation - but not until some months into it - the council acknowledged that they knew that the boxes were not actually in the bin stores. They said that council officers had referred to the 'bin store' when they meant the entire basement areas of the housing blocks. We took the view that had the council made this clear at an early stage of dealing with Ms C's complaint, this would have given more credibility to their responses, and would have reduced the stress and worry she experienced over this matter. The council were not able to provide us with evidence to show that the electricity provider had insisted that the bin stores and chutes were welded shut. We also found that responsibility for the street lighting was shared with the electricity supplier, in that they were responsible for power supply issues and the council were responsible for repairing defective lights. While there was evidence of some action being taken by the council, we found gaps in the process, and times when no action was being taken.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failures identifed in our investigation; and
• consider producing area-specific information leaflets for residents affected by regeneration projects and to record any information or advice given to individuals.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's planning department had not taken action to prevent his neighbour from erecting a garden shed in the wrong place. He felt the council should have taken earlier action because Mr C had made it clear to them where his neighbour had erected an area of decking, which would later be used as a base for constructing the shed. The council explained their role in planning enforcement and advised that at that stage there was no breach of development control that would allow them to take action. When Mr C's neighbour did build the shed in the wrong place, the council promptly took steps to ensure that it was relocated to the site approved under a certificate of lawfulness.

Having considered the council's response to Mr C's complaint and their actions, we were satisfied that they had acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C lives near an open cast coal site which has been subject to several applications for planning consent covering specific areas of the site. Mr C made three complaints about the council's recording of operational complaints made by residents and the council's investigation of issues of dust and noise emissions from the site. He also complained about the council's failure to review relevant planning conditions to ensure effective monitoring.

Our investigation did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council provided a reasonable explanation of how reports of noise nuisance and dust emissions and complaints were recorded by the relevant planning and environmental services. We found that the council responded appropriately to a specific complaint of dust emissions in March 2012 and with regard to a query made by Mr C in submitting photographic evidence. We also found that, when noise complaints had been made, these had been brought to the operator's attention. A sizeable number of mitigation measures (actions to reduce the noise or the impact of the noise) had been installed. Despite these, Mr C and other residents had continued to make complaints of inappropriately loud noise levels, which the council had investigated. In the autumn of 2012 the council sited noise equipment in Mr C's neighbour's property and the initial results suggested to the council that further controlled monitoring was required. At the end of our investigation the results of this monitoring were still awaited, and so we made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• complete their current noise monitoring exercise, analyse the results, and inform Mr C of any action they intend to undertake.

Summary

Ms C inherited a property from her mother, who had died unexpectedly. Unable to sell it, Ms C decided to rent the property out. She complained that the council had unreasonably held her liable for council tax during periods for which exemptions should have been granted. She said the council had pursued her relentlessly and had taken recovery action unreasonably when she had already provided all the information they had asked for.

We upheld all Ms C's complaints, as we agreed that the council took too long to resolve this. They missed the opportunity to reply to letters from Ms C in which they could have clarified that information, which Ms C clearly believed had been sent, had not in fact been received. We concluded that the council were also responsible for creating unreasonable confusion. Not only had they failed to clearly explain that information had not been received when Ms C repeatedly said it had been sent, they requested information which had already been provided, and did not send the correct exemption form. We concluded that the council should not have pursued debt recovery action when they had missed an opportunity to explain clearly to Ms C what information they still needed from her.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the distress caused by their administrative shortcomings;
• review arrangements in the council tax and revenues team for reviewing and responding to correspondence to ensure that customers receive a high quality and responsive service; and
• review any costs to Ms C arising from the recovery action taken by the council for the period in question and consider whether any reimbursement is warranted.