Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council responded to his complaints about the care provided by the council's social work services, and in particular by his son's mental health officer. His complaint had been considered by an independent complaints review committee hearing, as required by the statutory social work complaints procedure.

We reviewed the process the council followed and were satisfied that they had investigated and responded to his complaint in line with the social work complaints procedure. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live in a ground floor four-in-a-block flat and are the sole council tenants in the block. The flat directly upstairs has a private tenant. Mr and Mrs C complained about unreasonable delay by the council in repairing the roof and rhones, which they felt resulted in dampness in their flat; the council’s failure to deal with problems of antisocial behaviour from the upstairs tenant, and the council’s failure to take action in relation to five incidents of flooding from the upstairs property.

We upheld one of the three complaints, as our investigation found that there was an unreasonable delay of eleven months between the council obtaining a quote for the roof and rhone repairs and the repairs being done. This was initially because they sent a copy of the quote to the occupant rather than the owner of the upstairs flat and did not follow up the lack of a reply. We made recommendations to address these failings. We did not uphold the complaint about antisocial behaviour because Mrs C had not provided the necessary information to take the matter forward and there was no corroboration from others. The council had no record of three of the five incidents of flooding, and had taken action on one some three years earlier. The fifth incident had only occurred on the eve of Mr and Mrs C’s final stage complaint to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• explain to Mr and Mrs C what the installation of a chemical damp proof course and kitchen upgrading would entail and, if that work would be unduly disruptive to Mrs C because of her medical condition, make appropriate arrangements for short term temporary accommodation; and
• investigate any request that Mr and Mrs C make about repairs to the fabric of their flat as a result of the internal flooding incident on a date in March and take the remedial action necessary.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application and an application for Conservation Area Consent (CAC). Mr C felt that the report on the planning application was misleading and did not express balanced views. He maintained that Historic Scotland had expressed concerns about the development but that these were not included in the planning report or the CAC report. During our investigation the council confirmed that it was their responsibility as planning authority to determine applications and that there was no statutory requirement to consult with Historic Scotland on applications for CAC or planning permission. There was only a statutory duty to notify Historic Scotland of the council's proposed decision on CAC. However, in terms of best practice they had informally consulted Historic Scotland on the CAC application. When commenting on this, Historic Scotland had raised some concerns about the development, and while the council confirmed that these concerns were considered as part of the planning process they accepted that the concerns raised by Historic Scotland should have been reflected in the CAC application report.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the report on the application demonstrated that all planning considerations had been fully considered, as had the issues raised by Historic Scotland. However, we felt that Historic Scotland 's comments should have been included in both reports and we drew our views on this to the attention of the council.

Mr C also said that the council had unreasonably sought comments from Historic Scotland after the applications had been determined. We were satisfied that, in line with procedures, the council had notified Historic Scotland of their intention to grant consent for a CAC application after the committee meeting, giving Historic Scotland the opportunity to call-in the application if they disagreed with the council's decision. In this case Historic Scotland did not call the application in to Scottish Ministers. While we did not uphold the complaint, we drew to the council's attention that it would be good practice for the report on the CAC application to have explained that the decision to grant consent would be subject to notification to Historic Scotland.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take action against a neighbour who had applied for planning permission for a house in a field beside Mr C's home. Mr C was concerned that the applicant described the land in an earlier application for planning permission in principle as 'agricultural' and in a recent application for approval of detailed permission as 'paddock'. Mr C was of the view that the applicant was untruthful on his application and land ownership certification. He also complained that the council did not refer the application to the appropriate committee and so it was decided by the head of planning under delegated powers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We reviewed the council's actions and determined that, although the land was described in two different ways, certification about agricultural use was not required as this was not a tenanted piece of land. In addition, as it was within the settlement boundary and not in open countryside, the use of land was not relevant to the application. In terms of the council's decision not to require the application to be considered at committee, their standing orders require this to be done where more than five objections are received to a planning application. However, they treat separate objections coming from the same household as one objection, which they are entitled to do. In this case as five objections were received from three households, we were of the view that the council's interpretation of this as a total of three objections was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a council employee, is also a council tenant living in a property that was 'tied' to his employment. He complained that the process followed by the council, prior to increasing the rent on what were formerly tied properties, did not comply with their responsibilities in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (the Act). In addition, he complained that the council failed to obtain written agreement, between landlord and tenant, before varying the terms of the tenancy, again, in breach of the Act.

When we examined the complaints it because clear that both parties had different interpretations of the Act and that to reach a clear view, a decision would need to be made on which interpretation was correct. As this can only be determined by the courts, we were unable to uphold the complaints.

Summary

The council proposed to change the catchment area of the primary school that Mrs C's child attends. The proposed changes meant that children from Street X would in future attend a different primary when starting school. Mrs C lives in Street X, and had expected that her second child would go to the same school as her first, so she was unhappy with the proposals and contributed to the consultation on them. The council's education executive, however, decided to accept the proposals, although with some alterations. The alterations meant that Street Y would remain in the school's original catchment area, but not Street X.

Mrs C felt this was unfair and complained to the council. She complained that they had failed to adequately inform directly affected parents of the proposed changes and had failed to adequately consult members of the public about the decision to retain the catchment area of Street Y. She further complained that the chief executive had failed to give an adequate response to her complaint that the decision to retain the catchment area of Street Y was unfair to pupils in Street X, where circumstances were the same.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council's method of informing directly affected parents of the proposed changes was reasonable, as was the decision that no further consultation was required about the decision to retain the catchment area of street Y. The chief executive had explained that the decisions on the proposals were taken by the education executive following consideration of all submissions to the consultation, and the council officer report on the outcome of the consultation. We found this to have been an adequate response to Mrs C's complaint.

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.