Local Government

Summary
Ms C’s property sits below a property that is leased to the council. She complained that the council failed to take appropriate action when they found out that a pipe had burst in the property above hers and that they failed to properly investigate her complaint. She also complained that the council failed to maintain the property when it was empty and left it without heating in extreme weather conditions.

Our investigation found that, although the council had taken appropriate action to look after the property while it was empty, including taking action to deal with the burst pipe, they had failed to make any contact with Ms C and had provided her with inaccurate information about the action they had taken.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• review the circumstances of this complaint to consider whether there is a need for a written policy or procedure to formalise the action to be taken when dealing with future similar circumstances;
• in circumstances where an owner occupier cannot be contacted by the council, consideration be given to leaving a card for the owner occupier explaining the situation and providing relevant contact details; and
• apologise to Ms C for the inaccurate information provided when responding to her representations and take steps to try to ensure that accurate information is provided when responding to complaints.
 

Summary
Ms C lives alone in a three bedroom council property, one of a four-in-a-block. She wanted a transfer to move to a two bedroom house in the same town. After eight years she had not received an offer. She was, therefore, unhappy when another person in similar circumstances obtained a transfer to a two bedroom house. She understood that this person had received assistance from the council to move, under a Transfer Incentive Programme that Ms C did not know about.

Our investigation found that when the programme was introduced, the council identified certain tenants suitable for the scheme who lived in under-occupied properties and wrote to them offering an incentive to move to a smaller property. They did not offer this to Ms C and did not publicise the programme, but we did not find this unreasonable in the circumstances of the scheme and did not uphold the complaint. The council also told us that the person in similar circumstances did not receive such assistance. We did, however, uphold her complaint about the council’s complaints handling, in that first of all they did not respond and then when they did, they did not adequately explain the position.
 

Summary
Ms C was unhappy with the council’s complaints handling when she complained to them about a social work related matter. She complained that there were delays in the complaints process; that she was not given information about the process, and that there was a delay in providing her with a report from a Complaints Review Committee (CRC).

Our investigation found that when Ms C lodged a formal complaint, the council failed to respond appropriately. They delayed in responding, and in telling her the outcome of the CRC (which the council told us was due to a particular member of staff not being available). We also found that they twice failed to tell Ms C that she could take her concerns to a CRC, despite this being part of the statutory social work complaints process.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• analyse the cause of the delays that occurred in Ms C's case and put in place measures to prevent a recurrence. The council’s analysis should cover all instances of delay, but particularly look at what arrangements are required to ensure that a member of staff’s allocation of different duties does not interfere with the statutory timescales for responding to complaints; and
• remind members of social work staff who are likely to deal with complaints of the requirements of the procedure, in particular with regard to how a formal complaint should be dealt with and what information should be provided to complainants about how to progress their complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to notify neighbours about a planning application. Mr C also disagreed with the discretionary decision to approve the application. He had complained to the council after the work started. The council acknowledged, and apologised to him for, the failure to send out the specific neighbour notification letters (NNL) although the application had been advertised in the local press. The letters had been prepared but due to an oversight they were not sent out. The council also considered the objections that Mr C would have made to the application and concluded that, even had his objections been received, they would still have taken the decision to grant planning permission to his neighbour.

Our enquiries to the council confirmed that they had fully acknowledged the error in relation to the NNLs and had taken appropriate remedial action to put a new system in place that would prevent any application progressing until two different officers had confirmed that NNLs had gone out. We felt that this action was sufficiently robust to minimise the possibility of a recurrence. Therefore, although we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

The planning decision itself was a discretionary decision which our enquiries confirmed had been taken without maladministration. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that after he applied for a grant in 2008 the council failed to return the original title deeds for his house and supporting documentation. He said he only became aware of this in 2011 following a further grant application. He said that a council officer uplifted the original documentation and failed to return it, or send it to Registers of Scotland (ROS) where the title to his home was to be amended following the grant application. He also considered that he should have received acknowledgement that the £30 fee for making these amendments had been paid.

The council explained that they made a full search of their records and returned the only documentation they held - a copy of the title deeds. They pointed out that their procedures at the time only required that they obtain a copy of the deeds to support a grant application. They provided us with copies of correspondence sent to Mr C at the time of the grant application, which explained that the council would contact ROS to request amendment to the title to show the grant restrictions. They also explained that the £30 fee would be deducted from the grant at source.

We found no evidence to support Mr C's view that he supplied his original title deeds or that the council should have forwarded these to ROS. ROS have confirmed that the title was amended. As the council explained the process to Mr C at the time, and as there is no evidence to show that they failed to follow the correct process, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of an outline planning application for a crematorium. Mr C disagreed with the decision and maintained that the council had not taken his representations against the application into account.

He also complained that the environmental issues in relation to the crematorium had not been properly considered and was aggrieved that the council's Transportation and Infrastructure Service had altered their position on the width of the carriageway.

Our investigation did not find any fault on the part of the council in processing the application.
 

Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained about a number of aspects of the council's handling of a planning application made by neighbours, including that the council failed to carry out neighbour notification correctly by not notifying Mr and Mrs C; failed to properly advertise the planning application; and failed to provide consistent and correct responses to enquiries. Mr and Mrs C also complained that, although they had provided the council on two separate occasions with relevant grounds for work being halted (on the grounds that the development was not being constructed in accordance with the planning permission), the council refused to take action to halt work on the development.

Our investigation confirmed that there was an error in the advertising of the application, and noted that the council had looked into the matter and identified that this was due to an oversight, for which an apology was offered to Mr and Mrs C. We recommended to the council that action should be taken to improve their process to ensure that there was not a recurrence of the error.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• take steps to ensure that the error in publication of the application has been investigated thoroughly and that action is taken to improve their process to ensure that this does not recur.

Summary
The complaint concerned the council's administration of statutory notices issued on a building in the city.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.

Summary
The complaint concerned the council's administration of a statutory notice placed on a building in the city.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.

Summary
The complaint concerned the council's administration of statutory notices issued on a building in the city.

This complaint is one of a number of cases that the SPSO has closed because of an ongoing external review. The council have committed to reconsidering this complaint if the complainant remains dissatisfied following the conclusion of the external review.