Local Government

Summary

Mr C, who was homeless, said he was duped into bidding for a property that he did not want when the council used a misleading image to advertise the property. The picture used was a computer generated image which Mr C said bore no resemblance to the actual building being constructed and the council did not disclose that it was a multi-storey building. Mr C said that, as a recovering drug addict, the thought of living in a multi-storey block filled him with anxiety. The council, however, said they had fulfilled their statutory duty by making him an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. As they had fulfilled their duty under the homelessness legislation, the council removed his silver priority (a higher priority given to people in certain circumstances who are waiting to be housed). Mr C said that the medical evidence he provided concerning his grounds for refusing the property, and details of his personal circumstances, were not taken into consideration either at the initial decision to remove his priority, or when he appealed.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council acknowledged that the picture was an artist's impression, but said that the details included on the advert made it clear that the property had not yet been built. Having looked at the image, we found that it was quite clearly an artist's impression of what the building was expected to look like and the description of the property explained that it was a 'new build' and included a lift. We did not consider this unreasonable and found that the council had acted in accordance with their legislative duties and responsibilities and the code of guidance on homelessness in arriving at their decision to remove Mr C's silver priority when he refused a reasonable offer of accommodation.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council street cleaning team had falsely completed work sheets on two occasions and that the council had not responded appropriately to complaints about this. Mr C said the streets around his home had not been cleaned on the two days in question and provided photographs of litter and leaves on the streets around his home taken over a three week period before and after the days in question. Mr C complained to the council but was dissatisfied with the council's response, and said that the council had not directly addressed his complaint about falsification.

When we investigated, we found that the work sheet in question was an operational route sheet which was subject to change according to priority. The council said that they had investigated Mr C's complaint. The cleaning team confirmed they had followed the operational route sheet on the days in question and had cleaned the streets. The sheet did not indicate to what extent each street had been cleaned and the council accepted that Mr C's street may not have been completely delittered. However, we did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence of falsification on the part of the street cleaning teams. The photographs provided by Mr C were of limited evidential value, and did not provide a whole street picture which would enable us to carry out a before and after comparison.

We also found that the council had written to Mr C's MP after the complaint was made, refuting the allegation of falsification. We did not uphold the complaint about the council's failure to respond properly, as the council had made their position on the matter of falsification clear. Mr C had received a copy of the council's letter from his MP.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. He complained that the council failed to take into account the relevant planning policies and guidance when considering an application to add an additional storey to the property next to his. Two previous applications for the site had been refused and he was particularly concerned because, while some material changes had been made from the refused applications, the third application had not addressed some of the reasons for refusal of the first two applications.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints. We found that the application was handled correctly, and the relevant conservation policies had been considered. Although the council accepted that there was an error in the planning report in calculating the amount by which the development overshadowed Mr C's property, we found that this did not mean that the decision to grant planning consent was incorrect.

Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of his representations about the planning application and the handling of his personal details. We found that the council had provided a reasonable response to his representations about the application. However, while it was not for us to say whether there had been a breach of the Data Protection Act we found that the council had not provided a reasonable response to his representations about this. We upheld that complaint and drew the council's attention to our comments.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to display appropriate warning signs about loose chippings on the road surface beside repairs they were carrying out. He also complained that they failed to accept liability for damage to his car and failed to deal with his claim within a reasonable timescale.

We explained that we cannot consider the issue of liability as only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. We did, however, look to see whether the council had complied with their responsibilities in terms of warning signage. Mr C said that no signs were displayed, and provided photos which he felt proved this. The council explained that signs were displayed, but at some distance from the site. As there were two conflicting accounts of the signage, and little prospect of our obtaining sufficient evidence to establish which version was correct, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We did uphold Mr C's complaints about the delays in dealing with his claim and in the handling of his complaint. As the council had apologised and taken steps to address the problems with the claims process, we did not make any further recommendations about this. However, we did recommend that the council write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in their handling of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the level of customer service he received in terms of their response to the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a long-standing problem with alleged antisocial behaviour from his neighbour, which he had reported to the council. He met with investigators from the council's antisocial investigating team twice to discuss his ongoing concerns. He complained to the council about the way in which the investigators acted towards him during those meetings. He later complained to us about the council's investigation of his complaints.

Mr C's complaint concerned members of the council's staff and, as such, the council did not disclose to him details of the findings of their investigation. They considered this to be an employment relations issue and said that the outcome of their investigation was protected by data protection legislation. We were not critical of the council's position on this, which was reasonable, and we were generally satisfied that steps were taken to investigate the issues and action was taken as a result of that investigation. That said, we found that there were significant delays throughout the investigation, Mr C was not kept informed about the reasons for these delays as we would expect and the council failed to advise Mr C of the final outcome of his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaints and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their failure to conclude their investigation within a reasonable time period and for their failure to keep in contact with Mr C during the investigation.

Summary

Mr C lived in a ground floor property next to a secondary school, a sheltered housing and day care complex, and an area of open ground (the plot). The plot had previously contained a pond with fluctuating water levels. This area was used to store materials for the construction of the sheltered housing and day care complex. Some three years later, according to Mr C, the plot was filled in and used as a site compound and storage area by contractors employed by a consortium that were redeveloping the school. Mr C had flooding problems at his home, and traced the start of them to the time when the plot was filled in. Mr C complained that the council acted unreasonably in allowing a company contracted by them to infill a site, resulting in severe flooding to his property, and that the council then failed to take adequate action to resolve the flooding problem.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the council were told about any proposal to infill or use the plot in conjunction with the redevelopment works at the school. On the second complaint, it was evident that after being alerted to significant flooding the council put in place extensive measures to prevent a recurrence.

Summary

Mr C complained that the health suite in a leisure centre was closed so often in 2011 that Glasgow Life were failing to provide him with an adequate membership service. He thought that he should have been compensated for this.

We investigated the complaint, and asked Glasgow Life for details of all the leisure centre's closures in 2011. We found that there was a planned closure for six weeks at the very beginning of the year for refurbishment, and several unforeseen closures in April/May due to technical problems. These closures led to a permanent repair being made, which took two weeks in October/November. Glasgow Life also provided details of how they had mitigated the effects of the repairs and the offers made to customers for alternative use in other facilities, or to put their membership on hold, where appropriate.

Taking these details into account, we were satisfied that Glasgow Life had acted appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint. However, Mr C also complained that Glasgow Life had delayed in dealing with his formal complaint. Available correspondence indicated that this had been the case, and we upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Glasgow Life:

• apologise for failing to deal with the complaint in terms of their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mrs C raised a complaint on behalf of her son about the council's handling of an allegation of plagiarism (passing off someone else's work as one's own) in relation to his school work. In particular, Mrs C was unhappy that, after admitting that the plagiarism accusation had been made in error, the council would not allow her son to submit as his higher music composition the piece of work which had been the subject of the allegation.

Our investigation established, however, that there was evidence that music staff had given their professional opinion that the piece of work was not of a satisfactory standard and would not have passed at higher level. We were also satisfied that the evidence showed that the council had taken reasonable steps to remedy the complaint by giving Mrs C's son further opportunities to submit the composition element of his higher music.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about a social services investigation into child protection issues affecting his family. Mr C said that the council had not handled his first complaint appropriately and had refused to fully respond to two further complaints he raised.

Although we noted that there were significant delays in Mr C's first complaint progressing through the council's social work complaints procedure, we considered that the council had handled it appropriately and in line with their procedures. We found that the delay was due to exceptional weather conditions over the Christmas and New Year period, along with problems the council had in understanding the detailed letters of complaint that Mr C had submitted. We also found evidence showing that Mr C was given the opportunity to provide evidence to support all the elements of his first complaint and to provide his version of events at a complaints review committee hearing.

Mr C's second complaint was about a video recording he had made, which apparently showed that social workers had provided inaccurate information at a social work child protection case conference. After obtaining legal advice, the council refused to review the recording because they said they believed it was inadmissible as evidence. They later departed from this view, and said that they were unsure whether it was lawful to use a recording that had been made covertly (ie not made openly), without the consent of the staff involved.

We have previously obtained advice about covert recordings, which allows us to provide a clearer view that an authority, such as the council or our office, may consider evidence even if it was obtained through covert recording without the prior consent of all parties involved. Relevant material in respect of a case which has been obtained covertly, without the prior consent of all parties, is not as a rule inadmissible as evidence. So, when considering a case, both the Ombudsman and the council are obliged to take into account all relevant evidence in reaching their conclusions and are under a common law duty to give adequate reasons for these conclusions. However, it is then for the authority concerned to decide how much weight they should attach to such evidence when reaching their decision about the matter. We concluded that the council should have fully responded to Mr C's complaint about the case conference and reviewed his video evidence through the social work complaints procedure.

Mr C raised a third complaint about matters surrounding the birth of his youngest child. Although the complaint was related to social services' overall child protection investigation, we considered that the council acted unreasonably in not fully responding to the complaint through the social work complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ask the complaints review committee to consider reviewing Mr C's video recording of, and his concerns about inaccurate information being discussed at, the case conference on 25 November 2010; and
• ask the complaints review committee to consider reviewing Mr C's complaints about the pre-birth and post-birth conferences in relation to his youngest child.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, he alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, did not reasonably consider other options for the site, did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site and did not keep adequate records of the consultation process.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of the four elements of Mr C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate; the other options had been reasonably considered; and the council's reasons for selecting the preferred site were set out in the officers' reports and committee minutes. We also considered that the council had kept adequate records of the process.