Local Government

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.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, and did not reasonably consider other options for the site.

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 either of the two elements of Ms C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate, and that other options had been reasonably considered.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she 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, and did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site.

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 three elements of Mrs 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.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council failed to provide them with a house that was suitably sound insulated, and failed to take effective action when they reported antisocial behaviour by a number of neighbours.

The council explained that they carried out appropriate tests and could confirm that the house met the relevant standards in terms of sound insulation. They also explained that they had taken action in line with their policies in response to all Mr C and Ms C's reports of antisocial behaviour.

We did not uphold the complaint as, from our review of the evidence, we found that the council carried out appropriate testing on Mr C and Ms C's home which complied with the relevant technical specifications. In addition, we reviewed their actions in response to Mr C and Ms C's complaints of antisocial behaviour and established that each report was investigated and, where corroboration could be obtained, action was indeed taken, in line with their antisocial behaviour policies.

Summary

Mr C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained to us on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) about the council's handling of her tenancy of a council property. Ms A had accepted and signed the tenancy agreement but handed the keys back the next day with a signed notice of termination of tenancy. Ms A was unhappy that, although she had the keys to the property for less than 24 hours, she then received an invoice for a full month's rent. She said that despite signing both the agreement and the notice of termination which had stated that 28 days' notice was required, she had been verbally assured that she would not have to pay the one month's notice. Ms A was also unhappy that a council tax debt for the property was referred to sheriff officers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that there were no notes of the conversations between the council and Ms A. The council said that they had not given her such verbal assurance, and that the 28 days' notice would only be waived in very exceptional circumstances and would need the approval of senior management. Senior management had in fact considered the request but had decided that the 28 day rent period would be charged. The council said that as Ms A had had the keys for 24 hours they needed to start the 'void' process again to allow safety checks to be carried out. (A 'void' is a property that does not have a current tenancy).

The council did say that they would expect there to be a record of conversations of a significant nature. We were critical of the fact that there were no notes in this case, but noted that the council had taken action to address this matter. Overall, we found that there was not enough evidence for us to say for sure that an assurance had been given to Ms A that her rent period would be waived.

When we looked at the issue about council tax, we found that although the council had resolved the matter by awarding a discount and cancelling the account, Ms A was still unhappy with what they had done. We found, however, that the evidence demonstrated that Ms A had not contacted the council after receiving the council tax bill or reminder notice, and that the council had correctly followed procedures in their handling of the matter.