Local Government

Summary

C complained about the council’s handling of a planning application. C’s next door neighbour made a retrospective application for planning permission for the erection of a garden room/store and timber fencing to the boundary at the rear of the property. This followed an earlier enforcement enquiry in respect of the garden room structure being erected without the necessary permission in place.

C objected to the planning application through a solicitor on the basis that it constituted overdevelopment and would adversely impact neighbours’ residential amenity and did not contribute towards quality place making. Planning permission was granted with no conditions attached.

We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We were satisfied that the assessment of the impact of the fence was an issue of discretion and that carrying out site visits and allowing additional comments/objections to the planning application were matters of planning judgement. Whilst we found that the council did reach the right planning decision, we considered that there had been a lack of clarity and explanation and that the council’s calculations in relation to the coverage of rear curtilage in the Report of Handling were ambiguous and are not in line with the relevant guidance. On balance, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Case officers should be aware of how to measure curtilage areas and calculate the proportion proposed to be built upon. The calculation should be clearly set out and a record made.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the lack of support from the council’s social work department following the death of their parent. C had sought help and support for them and their younger sibling (A). During the years that A was under the age of 16, C reached out numerous times. C said that they did not know whether or not they were capable of looking after A. C was not supported by the council during this time and A remained in C’s care. C was also not given appropriate information about seeking a kinship care order, which would have enabled them to access kinship care assistance. By the time the council offered advice, A had reached the age of 16 and was too old for a kinship order to be sought. As a result, C and A did not have any general support, or financial support during the time A was a child and in C’s care.

The council did not acknowledge any failings and considered that they had acted appropriately. During our investigation, the advice we received indicated that the council should have considered A to potentially be an eligible child earlier than they did and did not help with legal costs which had a significant impact as A then became too old. This impacted C and A going forward as A did not have access to throughcare (i.e. support from social work into young adulthood as a care experienced person).

During discussions, it was identified that an ex-gratia payment may be appropriate to resolve the case. After some consideration the council offered a payment of £8000. C felt that this was an acceptable amount and accepted the offer. Therefore, we discontinued our investigation and closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C complained about their housing. C had moved into the property because they were downsizing from their previous home. The property they moved into had been purchased by the council from its owner as part of a ‘buy back’ scheme for council properties. C complained of persistent damp and mould within the property that was causing them significant health problems. C was offered alternative properties by the council but C rejected them on the basis that they were unsuitable.

We found that extensive works had been carried out to the property prior to C moving in. We also found that, whilst C disputed the suitability of the alternative properties they were offered, the council had followed the correct procedure in assessing C’s medical needs and the properties offered to C. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of C’s complaint.

In relation to C’s reports of damp and mould, we found that these issues were investigated. However, the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond, given that they were aware of the health issues being experienced by the family. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to respond timeously to their concerns. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should have effective systems in place to ensure that problems with mould and damp are responded to timeously.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to follow their own enforcement process and relevant planning guidance in response to an alleged breach of planning condition/s in respect of two sites.

In responding to the complaint, the council acknowledged that breaches at the sites had occurred and highlighted the discretionary nature of planning enforcement. As such, the council considered resolution of the breaches through informal negotiation had, in the first instance, been an appropriate approach rather than formal enforcement action.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that council’s approach to securing compliance with the planning conditions was in line with their usual enforcement process and national guidance, with no evidence of undue delay or inaction on the council’s part at the time of our investigation. We also found that the council’s decision to engage in negotiations to remedy the planning breaches, rather than to pursue formal enforcement action, was a decision that they were entitled to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold C’s complaint.

However, we did draw the council’s attention to their own Enforcement Charter which sets out the principles for effective enforcement action, specifically that: negotiation to remedy a breach should be pursued provided an appropriate solution can be achieved in a timely manner. As some of the breaches had not been remedied at the time of this investigation, we suggested that the council may wish to consider setting a timescale by which formal enforcement action would be taken.

Summary

C complained about the fitting of new windows to their property. C said there was wind, water, and noise ingress and the window units were not fitted correctly - specifically that they were not the correct size. When reporting this to the council, some workmen agreed with C’s position and others considered that there was no issue. C took photographs of holes around the windows before these were covered with MDF wood by the council. C told us that the council had not repaired the holes; instead they had packed the holes with insulation before providing new MDF surrounds.

Our initial view of the complaint indicated that the council had not appropriately investigated the issues C reported, and may have not appropriately resolved matters (i.e. by covering with MDF and using insulation). The council asked the manufacturer of the windows to inspect them. The manufacturer said that the window units were not faulty. The council then decided that nothing further could be done. Our initial assessment of the complaint identified that the council could not evidence the outcome of the manufacturer inspection. As such, we asked the council if they would be willing to arrange an independent inspection and report and take any follow-up actions identified to resolve the issues. The council initially declined this opportunity but later felt it would be appropriate for them to take this action.

Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved as the council agreed to take the action requested. However, we have made clear if the issue is not resolved and/or C remains unhappy that they can come back to us and we may re-open the complaint and consider it further. We have asked the council to provide evidence of the action taken.

Summary

C was living in a residential unit for young people who are looked after by the council. C complained that the council failed to take appropriate action when they raised safeguarding concerns about the unit manager and failed to investigate a breach of confidentiality when C received abusive messages from a former member of staff. C also complained that the council had failed to keep them informed about decisions made about the future of the residential unit and their complaints had not been handled in accordance with the council’s complaints procedures.

We took independent advice from a children and families social worker. We were satisfied that C had been kept reasonably informed about the position of the future of the unit. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. However, there were some failings in relation to communication and record-keeping in response to the safeguarding concerns raised. There were also failings in the investigation into abusive messages from a former member of staff and in the complaints handling. Therefore, we upheld these parts of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of the complaints. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Safeguarding concerns should be communicated appropriately and in line with safeguarding guidance and clear and accurate records should be maintained.
• Staff in the unit should be aware of the issues regarding the use of social media highlighted by this case.
• The council should maintain clear and accurate records of discussions and meetings that take place, in line with required standards.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should comply with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and council staff should be familiar with the complaints handling procedure. Complaint investigations should be clearly recorded at each stage and responses provided within 20 working days. If this is not possible, the complainant must be updated on the reason for the delay and provided with a revised timescale.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C is an advocate for and representative of A. C complained that a social worker acting on behalf of the council failed to timeously apply for state benefits on A’s behalf despite providing an undertaking to do so. C complained that this failure lead to a loss of income for A resulting in rent and council tax arrears and that the council subsequently sought direct deductions from A’s state benefits to pay for these council tax and rent arrears. C further complained that the council failed to adequately communicate with A and their representatives. Finally, C complained that the council failed to adequately investigate or respond to the complaint. The council did not consider that there was any failure to apply for and manage A’s state benefits.

Upon investigation, we found that there was an appointment of a social worker to undertake the application for state benefits on A's behalf. However, we found that there was a delay by the council in submitting an appointee application form. We found that A experienced an actual loss of income as a result. We also found that the council unreasonably sought direct deductions from A’s state benefits for council tax and rent arrears caused by these delays. We therefore upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Whilst we did not uphold the aspect of C’s complaint that the council failed to communicate adequately with A, we found that the council failed to adequately investigate and respond to their complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for the delay in progressing A’s application for state benefits and for unreasonably seeking direct deductions from their state benefits to recover rent and council tax arrears. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Either; 1. calculate the amount of Universal Credit (considering each component allowance) and council tax reduction that A lost out on due to their delays and reimburse A for any shortfall of Universal Credit, rent and council tax reduction (taking into account of the discretionary housing payment already made). Or 2. agree a settlement payment with A through their representative C.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Where the council undertakes to apply for benefits on behalf of an individual, this should be progressed promptly in order to ensure that entitlement to benefit is not lost. Deductions from benefits should not normally be sought when arrears have been caused by the council’s inaction.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to the council about the way that their child’s school had responded to an incident of bullying in the playground. C also complained about the way this matter had been communicated to them as a parent of some of the children involved.

We found that the council had responded to the incident in keeping with their policies and procedures and we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

In relation to the school's communication with C about the incident, we found that there were inconsistencies within the councils own records about the point at which they became aware of C’s child being involved in the incident, and in relation to the school’s position on whether or not there was an area of the playground that was known to be difficult to supervise. Given the discrepancies within the council’s records, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that the complaint response about the playground incident was not supported by the evidence/ the school’s documentation of the incident. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be accurate and supported by the evidence. Comments on complaints provided to the SPSO should be consistent with the documentation of the incident being investigated.
• Complaint responses should be accurate and supported by the evidence.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the way that the council handled the planning process and the building warrant process for a self-build project within an existing development of houses. Planning permission had been granted, and three years later only limited progress had been made and an application was made by the developer to place a static caravan on site, where they would live whilst completing the project. There were several applications relating to the caravan, and some years later an enforcement notice was served by the council. This was appealed by the developer. Two years later, the council served a completion notice on the site, and the case was appealed to the Planning & Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) by the developer.

C complained to the council. The Scottish Government reporter concluded planning permission had lapsed, because development had not lawfully commenced. The council took legal advice, which suggested that they reluctantly accept the reporter’s findings. The advice noted that should further evidence be submitted, then the council could take this into account if it supported a contrary position on the implementation of the initial planning permission.

C continued to correspond with the council, and brought a number of complaints to the SPSO. We took independent planning advice and we found that the council had the discretion to decide what enforcement action to pursue, if any. The council had followed the legal advice that they had received, serving a notice requiring submission of a new planning application. The developer had chosen to pursue an alternative course of action, by applying for a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use or Development (CLPUD). This was not the same as being granted planning permission, but was an acceptable course of action by the developer. The decision of the Scottish Government reporter was only directly applicable to the completion notice, which could not be served. The council were entitled to determine whether they were satisfied the development had lawfully commenced. The advice stated that on balance, the council had acted reasonably. We found that whilst the council’s actions were not without criticism, they had exercised their lawful powers when reaching decisions on both planning and building standards matters. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to follow the correct procedures for issuing a building warrant to a neighbouring property. C had raised issues due to noise ingress to their property, which C attributed to alterations to the approved design for the neighbouring extension.

The council acknowledged that an amendment to the building warrant should have been sought and apologised for this. They noted that the original officer who dealt with the case had left the council, but a review of the works carried out had satisfied the council that the works complied with building standards and that had an amendment to the building warrant been sought, it would have been granted.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified building standards adviser. We found that the actions taken by the council were reasonable. The council were acting within their discretionary powers by determining that the building work carried out met the relevant standards. The council correctly identified that an amendment to the warrant should have been sought and had taken the appropriate steps to address this. Therefore, we have upheld this part of C's complaint but have made no further recommendations due to the appropriate action already taken.