Local Government

Summary
The council decided to exclude Mr C's son from school for five days. He said that they improperly excluded his son and that this breached his rights to an education. He also complained that the council failed to acknowledge responsibility for what he considered was an improper exclusion.

Although we cannot look at matters of discipline in a school, we can look to see whether the correct processes were followed in deciding to exclude a child. In this case we found they were not and we upheld this complaint. As the council had already acknowledged this, rescinded the exclusion and removed any reference to this in the pupil's records, we took no further action.

We did not uphold Mr C's other complaints, as we found that the school had not breached Mr C's son's rights to an education and that they had acknowledged their failures at an early stage.

Summary
Ms C entered into a council tenancy in 2007. Before she took the tenancy, the council had applied for and received Pressured Area Status (PAS) (which indicates that the demand for social housing outstrips supply) which meant that they had suspended tenants' right to buy their property until 2010.

Ms C had, however, anticipated that after serving the qualifying five years as a tenant she would be able to buy her home in 2012. In 2009 she applied to install central heating at her own expense. She was not specifically told then that the council might apply to extend the initial PAS period.

The council announced that intention in October 2009, and the Scottish Government granted a five year extension. Changes in the legislation after that allowed the council to exercise their powers to extend the period further, to 2020. Ms C complained that she had not been told of the possibility of the council applying for an extension, either when she signed for the tenancy or when she asked for permission to install central heating.

The council decided to apply for an extension five months after they gave Ms C permission to install central heating. While Ms C was clearly adversely affected by this and other policy decisions, in the absence of errors in the decision-making process we could not investigate these.

We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found that Ms C's original tenancy documents clearly stated that PAS was in place and that the council reserved the right to apply for an extension. She signed the documents and, therefore, the council clearly gave her accurate information about the position on right to buy.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused his son a place on the school bus. Mr C had to apply for a concessionary seat for his son, who was not entitled to free school transport if he attended a school which was not the school for his catchment area. Mr C was unhappy that the council refused his son's application.

We considered the complaint, the council's responses to Mr C and his MSP, and the council and Scottish Government guidance on entitlement to free school transport when attending a non-catchment area school. We found that councils have a statutory responsibility to provide free school transport to certain categories of pupils. However, if a pupil is placed in a school as a result of a parent's placing request (ie one that is not in the relevant catchment area for where the pupil lives), they are not entitled to automatic free school transport. In cases such as these, parents must apply to the council regularly to request that they be considered for concessionary places. The council does not have a statutory duty to provide these places and they are not guaranteed.

Our investigation found that the decision not to award a place on the bus to Mr C's son was a decision that the council were entitled to make, and that there was no evidence of administrative error in the way they dealt with the matter.

Summary
Mrs C complained that a council officer advised her that the electric central heating in the council house she was offered would be replaced with gas heating. She believes that she needs this as she suffers from asthma and other respiratory (breathing) health problems. She said that she was told that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority points. She also said that it was only after she accepted the property that the council explained that the heating would not be replaced.

The council told us that the housing officer told her that they might be able to change the heating system and that he would contact the property services department to find out if this was possible. As the heating system in the property was only five years old, however, it was not possible to replace it. They confirmed that, as the house had been assessed as being suitable for her needs, she was informed that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority status.

In our investigation, we considered her concerns. We confirmed that, although we could not be certain what was said by the housing officer, if she refused a property which was assessed as meeting her needs she would have lost her gold priority points. We also found that the council had reviewed information from her GP and a respiratory consultant and were satisfied that the electric heating would not have a negative impact on Mrs C's health. As Mrs C would indeed have lost her gold priority points had she not accepted this property, and as we could not establish for certain what exactly was said by the housing officer, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary
Mr C was cycling on a designated cycle-path in a public park when a dog ran into him. As a result, Mr C was thrown from his bicycle. Five months later, he reported the accident and asked the council to serve a warning notice on the owner of the dog. Some seven months after that, the council responded advising that their management rules for parks did not allow for notices to be served on dog owners.

Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response and the time they took to provide it and raised his complaints with us. On investigating, we decided that the council's position regarding the enforcement of management rules was reasonable but that they had taken an unreasonable time to respond to his enquiries. As the council had already apologised for the delay itself, however, we recommended only that they apologise further to Mr C.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for not providing him with an explanation for their delay in responding to his contact or outlining the steps they had taken to ensure the delay would not be repeated.

Summary
Ms C told us that she moved in to her father's local authority house in October 2010. She said that, at the time, they had immediately requested that a joint tenancy be created but that the council failed to do this.

She also complained that the council failed to adhere to an undertaking that after a six month qualifying period a joint tenancy would be created, backdated to October 2010. Ms C also alleged that after her father died in 2011 the council did not grant her an automatic right of succession to the tenancy, and did not independently review the circumstances of her complaint as they had promised.

When we investigated the complaint we considered all the documentation and relevant legislation. We did not uphold any of Ms C's complaints. We found no evidence to confirm any of Ms C's allegations. There was no evidence that she moved into the house in 2010 - in fact, information from interviews with her late father confirmed that she moved there in April 2011 at the earliest. Ms C had also said that her father sent a recorded delivery letter in November 2010 asking that a joint tenancy be created. She was, however, unable to provide confirmation of postage that would have allowed the council to track the letter. There was no evidence of a promise to backdate the tenancy.

Although Ms C provided information which, she said, confirmed the date she took occupancy of the house the council said that this conflicted with previous information. Our investigation confirmed this to be the case. The council also asked her to provide specific information to show that her father's house had been her principal home, which they said would remove any doubt, but Ms C failed to do so.

After receiving the complaint, the council asked Ms C if she would agree to an independent review by a manager from outwith her area. She agreed. The review was completed and Ms C's tenancy was recognised as being from the date after her father died.

Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of his elderly mother who is the owner occupier of a ground floor flat in a tenement stair of six flats. Four of the flats, including the two at the top, are in council ownership. Since 2006, in response to complaints from the top flat tenants about leaks, the council instructed repairs to the roof, using provisions in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Mr C complained that the council unjustifiably authorised repeat roof repairs for a repair that was not properly undertaken in the first place and failed to ensure that the repairs were undertaken properly and to a satisfactory standard. He also said that council staff were rude and unhelpful to Mr C's mother and that the council did not communicate with Mr C rather than his mother when he asked them to do so.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. As part of our investigation we reviewed the details of all the works commissioned, from which it appeared that the costs were in fact less than Mr C had claimed. There was no evidence to suggest that later work was needed because of inadequate workmanship or scrutiny. The council's database showed nearly fifty contacts with Mr C's mother since 2009 and no evidence that she had complained about rudeness or that she had given Mr C a mandate to deal with the council on her behalf.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of two planning applications for the construction of a new house on a plot of land neighbouring his home.

Planning permission was initially granted for the build, despite the council's failure to notify neighbours of the development as required by planning regulations. Although the developer had the council's permission to build the new house, this was vulnerable to legal challenge due to this failure to notify neighbours.

To remedy this, the developer submitted a new planning application so that neighbour notification could be carried out. Planning permission was subsequently approved again.

Mr C felt that the original planning permission should have been revoked while the second application was being considered. He believed that the failure to do this meant that any objections submitted would be dismissed in favour of confirming the existing planning permission. Mr C submitted objections based on the impact the new development would have on his own property's privacy. He did not feel that his objections were taken into account when planning permission was granted for a second time.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council granted planning permission without neighbour notification. However, we did not find it necessary for the original planning permission to be revoked while the resubmitted planning application was being considered. The planning officer's report showed that due consideration was given to Mr C's objections with reference to local planning policy and we were, therefore, generally satisfied that the second planning application had been properly processed.

Mr C was told by the planning committee's vice convenor that he would be invited to attend a pre-determination hearing. This did not happen and he was subsequently told that planning permission had been granted without his attendance at such a meeting. On looking at this issue, we found that it was beyond the vice convenor's powers to make this promise to Mr C. However, there was no obligation on the council to hold a pre-determination hearing for this planning application or to invite Mr C to it. We recommended that the council remind elected members of the process for notification of and invitation to pre-determination hearings.

Mr C raised further concerns about the council's handling of his formal complaint. We found that the complaint was properly investigated but that there were delays to the council's responses.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• remind elected members of the process for notification of and invitation to pre-determination hearings.
 

Summary
Mr C and Ms C complained about the council's handling of an application for single person discount for council tax. The council had originally decided not to award single person discount but following the introduction of new guidance had revised their decision. Although single person discount had been awarded, Mr C and Ms C were unhappy with the number of questions asked by the council and the lack of explanation for the reasons for the questions. They were also concerned about the handling of their representations on the matter, the quality of information provided and the handling of their formal complaint.

We upheld most of the complaints. Prior to our involvement, the council had accepted that there had been some failings in the decision making processing and had taken action to improve the process and their customer service. During our investigation the council also accepted that they had failed to provide adequate information to Mr C and Ms C during the processing of the application. We did not, however, find evidence of any fault in the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for the failings identified in this complaint; and
• remind staff of the importance of following the guidance previously issued.

Summary
Ms C purchased a property which she intended to rent out to students. She contacted the council to establish what should be done about council tax.

Ms C complained that the council provided her with inaccurate information, leading her to believe that the tenants would be liable for the council tax. The council sent student packs to the tenants but they did not complete these. Ms C did not know this until she visited the property and found a number of demand notices. When she provided further information about the tenancy agreements, the council decided that the property was a house of multiple occupancy (HMO), making Ms C liable for council tax as landlord.

Ms C complained that, had she been told that the property was an HMO sooner, she could have made different arrangements that would have accounted for or avoided much of the council tax arrears that accrued. She also complained that the council failed to update her home address details. This resulted in correspondence and demand notices being sent to the wrong address, affecting her ability to resolve this.

We did not uphold the first two complaints. We found that the council provided appropriate information about council tax, based on the information that they had. Once they established that the property was an HMO, they worked appropriately with Ms C to establish if discounts and student exemptions should be applied to the account. We did not find that the council failed to record Ms C's address correctly when she bought the property. We did find, however, that they were slow to update their system when she told them about later changes of address, and upheld this complaint. We recognised the impact that this had on Ms C, but as the council had already acknowledged their error and apologised to her we did not make any recommendations.