Local Government

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.

Summary

Miss C, who lived with her partner, complained when she unexpectedly received a retrospective bill for council tax when the council removed a single occupancy discount from the account. Miss C said the council should not have applied a single occupancy discount when her partner had not applied for it. She said the council should have known that he was no longer a single occupant because he was a council tenant and they had attended the council's housing office together to enter into a joint tenancy. Miss C complained because she said that when they went to the council an officer had told them that they did not have to do anything more, and that their rent and council tax payments would stay the same. Miss C also complained that she had been caused a great deal of frustration by the council's poor handling of her initial enquiry and complaint.

The council said they could not be sure what advice was given to Miss C and her partner when they went to the council office to sign the new tenancy agreement. They said there was no agreement in place to exchange information between the housing team and the revenues team administering council tax. They said that they would consider whether such an agreement would be useful in future.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council sent revised council tax notices after the joint tenancy had been entered into, as well as a new council tax notice at the start of each new financial year. These clearly indicated that a discount had been applied on the basis of sole occupancy. This was clearly incorrect and Miss C and her partner should have brought this to the attention of the council.

We did, however, find shortcomings in the council's handling of Miss C's initial enquiries and complaint. Officers had not taken ownership of the issues, and unreasonably referred Miss C back to the council's contact centre when it was clear she was dissatisfied and had a complaint. The contact centre had not passed details of Miss C's enquiries to the relevant officers. In responding to our investigation, the council themselves identified a number of shortcomings in their handling of the matter and said they were taking steps to establish what improvements could be made in light of Miss C's complaints to avoid this happening again.

Summary

Mrs C complained that after she experienced sewage flooding into her garden, the council's environmental health and building control departments failed to take sufficient action. She alleged that as a consequence, the health of her family had been compromised. She was also unhappy that the council had allowed the owner of the property causing the problem to live in his house without having had a completion certificate provided. Mrs C said that after she complained formally about these matters, the council failed to respond properly to her concerns and did not deal with her formal complaint in terms of their own complaints process.

We investigated the complaint and took all the information provided by the council and Mrs C into account. This included the complaints files, internal emails, water testing results and inspection notes, together with drainage plans and the relevant environmental health and building legislation. Our investigation found that, while the council took appropriate action after a meeting, for about five months beforehand there had been no plan or impetus to resolve the matter, and so we upheld this part of the complaint. After the meeting, environmental health and building standards departments worked with the neighbour to find a resolution to the problem. There were some delays, but these were caused by the neighbour. The council took the view that in both this matter and that of the completion certificate, they would rather work with the neighbour's cooperation than take enforcement action against him. We found that this was a decision they were entitled to take. In terms of complaints handling, after Mrs C complained, the council found her correspondence challenging to deal with because of the amount that she sent them. Nevertheless, after tracking all the documentation as part of this investigation, we found that, overall, they dealt with Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the initial delay; and
• apologise for their failure in this matter.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that a dusty black deposit had developed throughout her home over the past few years. She asked the council to investigate this, and later complained that they did not take enough action to identify its source.

Our investigation found that the council visited and suggested that the source of the black substance might be related to a nearby dual carriageway and they sealed a vent. They also said it might be from candles and incense that council officers saw above the radiators in various rooms. The council had the substance tested by a laboratory but this did not identify for certain what it was or where it was coming from. However, they were of the view that it had not come from the fabric of the building, as it had not penetrated the wallpaper. The council then told Ms C that if she wanted any further tests to be carried out, she would have to pay for them. They said, however, that if she did so and the source was something to do with the structure of the building, they would reimburse her for any costs if the work was done by an accredited contractor.

As well as having the substance tested at a laboratory, we found that the council had visited Ms C's home several times, and had arranged for her gas fire to be checked. We did not uphold her complaint, as we found that they had taken reasonable steps to have the matter investigated.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably denied him access to their library service. The council had excluded Mr C from their libraries for a year because he had breached their computer use policy by accessing inappropriate websites and because of his attitude towards some members of staff. However, because Mr C had stated that he would not be returning to the library, the council excluded him informally, rather than formally under the relevant legislation. The council then reviewed this at the end of the year and extended the exclusion by another year. After a further year, they reviewed it again and decided that he could have conditional access to a library for an interim period.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 says we cannot question a decision that a council was entitled to make (a discretionary decision) where there is no evidence of maladministration (of anything being wrong in the taking of that decision). We can, however, consider whether the council followed the relevant policy or policies. In Mr C's case, the council did not have a policy on informal exclusion from their services, so there was no policy to compare their actions against. We did, however, consider whether they should have formally excluded Mr C from the library under the relevant legislation. We were, however, satisfied that the council were entitled to decide to exclude him from the library and, in view of the fact that Mr C said that he would not be returning to the library anyway, it was reasonable for them to do this on an informal basis.

That said, we found that the council had delayed in reviewing their decision at the end of each year. We found that they should have been more proactive in making these reviews and that their delays could potentially have delayed Mr C's return to the library. We also found that one of their letters should have offered Mr C the opportunity to make representations against their decision to extend the exclusion. Although we did not uphold his complaint, we made recommendations to address these matters.

We also considered whether it was reasonable for the council to impose conditions when they decided that Mr C could return to the library. The council has a duty of care towards their staff and we considered that it was reasonable for them to initially impose the conditions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether they should have a policy on excluding members of the public from public buildings whether formally or informally; and
• ensure that letters issued to members of the public about exclusions provide information on how they can make representations against the decision.

Summary

An application for planning consent was made to the council for a single wind turbine on an industrial estate about 800 metres from Mr C's home. Mr C lived too far away to be notified and was unaware that this had happened. He only became aware of this when the wind turbine was built. Mr C then had extensive email contact with one of his local councillors who tried to answer Mr C's questions or to direct them to a senior planning officer. The councillor then contacted the chief executive's office and the matter was dealt with by that office as a complaint review and was acknowledged as such to Mr C. Mr C responded, stressing that he was not at that time making a complaint but was gathering information. He said he reserved the right to make a complaint later.

Mr C complained to us about the council's complaints handing, and after investigation, we upheld two of his five complaints. The most significant of these was that the chief executive's service dealt with and responded to his questions by way of a complaint review. However, Mr C had specifically said that he was not making a complaint, and he had quite clearly not previously complained. It was, therefore, inappropriate for them to have dealt with his correspondence by way of a complaints review.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, if an elected member passses a matter to the Chief Executive's service to be dealt with at the final stage of the council's complaints procedure, the service check with the aggrieved person that they wish the matter to be dealt with that way, and which issues are to be addressed.

Summary

Mr C complained about various aspects of the council's decision to remove his wheeled rubbish bin and replace this service with plastic bags.

We agreed with Mr C that the council had failed to appropriately consult with, or notify him, of their decision to remove his bin. As, however, the council had already apologised for this and said they would make changes to ensure that in future landlords who reside elsewhere are informed of proposed changes, we did not make any recommendations.

Mr C also made three other complaints: that in making the decision to remove his bin, the council unreasonably failed to take into account the fact that he has no outside storage area to store rubbish between collections; that they were treating his property differently from other similar local properties by moving him to plastic bag collection; and that they were failing to ensure other residents who have outside storage areas remove their wheelie bins from the pavements where they cause an obstruction. We did not uphold any of these complaints as we found that the decision was one the council had the right to make and that his property was not being treated differently to other similar ones. On the final point, we found that the council agree that there is a problem with householders not removing their bins and are trying to address the matter. However, we did not uphold the complaint because this was not relevant to the council's decision about whether or not Mr C's property should be provided with a bin.