Local Government

Summary
Mr C has health problems and he found his contact with the council difficult. He complained that when the council pursued him for council tax arrears, they failed to take into account in the payment plan offered to him that he was on council tax benefit. He complained also that the council did not properly investigate his complaint about the handling of his council tax account and the attitude of staff. Mr C told us that it would solve his complaint if agreement could be reached with the council on a payment plan which was reasonable, because it took account of his circumstances, and if they looked into the handling of the matter.

The council offered to find a way of resolving the complaint by meeting with the complainant, or some other form of communication if this was more acceptable to him. Mr C agreed to this suggestion and we closed our file on the basis that a resolution was being pursued by the council.
 

Summary
Mr C complained to the council in May 2010 about their failure to clear snow from his road for a period of about four weeks from late December 2009. His complaint culminated in a letter from the chief executive in August 2010 which said that the council were in the process of reviewing their winter maintenance plans to enable them to treat more roads at an earlier stage.

In December 2010 Mr C sent an email to the chief executive to say that snow had fallen on his road for six consecutive days but no effort had been made to clear it. Mr C's letter was passed to the Roads Department who told Mr C they were working through the roads on a prioritised basis and would get to all areas as soon as possible when weather and resources permitted. They provided details of where he could get further information. Mr C complained to us that snow clearing in his road did not appear to have improved from the previous year. He also complained about how the council dealt with his email to the chief executive.

As part of our investigation, the council provided us with a copy of their new Winter Service Plan which indicated the priority of roads in Mr C's area in accordance with best practice guidance. Mr C's email had been passed to the Roads Department for them to advise him of the position. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints as we found that the council had acted appropriately in this case.
 

Summary
Ms C made a complaint about a statement made by a council officer in a committee meeting with councillors. The statement was that there was an imminent announcement which could influence the committee's decision. Ms C claimed that the council was unable to substantiate the statement and that it had misled councillors.

Following review of the relevant paperwork, the webcast of the council meeting and the council's responses to Ms C's correspondence, we decided that it was reasonable for the council to have expected that the announcement may have contained information that could have influenced the councillors' decision and we could understand why, in the circumstances of the case, the council would want to ensure that they made their decision having considered all the available information. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had decided against proceeding with a traffic regulation order (TRO) to restrict parking following a committee meeting where only objectors to the proposed order were allowed to address the committee. He was of the view that supporters should also have been allowed to present their case to the committee and should be advised of their right to do so.

The statutory framework under which TROs operate sets out the procedure which must be followed by a council when considering implementation of a TRO. It is these regulations which require that objectors have their concerns considered by the council. It does not require that similar consideration be given to supporters of a TRO. Although supporters of a TRO could attend an open committee meeting such as this one, under the terms of the council's standing orders, there is no requirement for them to be allowed to be heard.

Summary
Mr C has a daughter who started primary three of school in August 2010. Mr C was concerned that his daughter's handwriting had deteriorated and sought a meeting with the head teacher. He was not happy with the outcome of that meeting and three other incidents involving his daughter's class teacher. He decided to remove his child from that primary school at the same time as making a complaint.

He complained to us after completing the council's complaints procedure. He was informed that we were precluded by paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 of the SPSO Act 2002 from looking into the giving of instruction or conduct, curriculum and discipline in any educational establishment under the management of an education authority. We considered three complaints from Mr C about the handling of his complaint by Education Services, and upheld one complaint about a delay in escalating the complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• ensure that the director of children and families apologise for the delay by that service in processing the second stage complaint; and
• note and act on the shortcomings identified in relation to the delay, to avoid a future recurrence.

Summary
Mr C raised concerns about the planning process followed by the council and the content of the planning officer's report into a planning application for a wind turbine.

In particular, he was concerned that the council failed to carry out further neighbour notification and statutory consultation following the developer's relocation of the turbine to a nearby site. In addition, Mr C was of the view that the planning officer's report was partial and skewed in favour of the applicant.

Having reviewed the planning file and complaints correspondence, it was clear that the decisions reached by the planning officer were those he was entitled to reach in the exercise of his professional judgement and appeared to be consistent with national and local planning policy. For this reason we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C telephoned the council's contact service centre centre to complain about the state of the roads and pavements. His call was transferred to the council's administration members services support team, where he firstly spoke to an officer in the team and then her manager, as he had been told his manner in speaking to the officer was considered unacceptable. He was not happy with the response he received from the manager and telephoned the administration members services support team later the same day, spoke to a different officer and was again transferred to the team manager, as his manner was once again considered to be unacceptable.

When he made a complaint about the matter, he was unhappy that the council had accepted the word of the team manager about what had been said during his telephone calls and not interviewed him or any of the other people he said had witnessed the call. The chief executive said in his letter 'behaviour which includes the use of threatening and abusive language is not acceptable at any time'. He said that, based on the evidence presented, he was satisfied that the officers concerned had conducted themselves in an appropriate manner.

We found that calls to the contact service centre are recorded but those with the administration members services support team are not. The council had offered to arrange for Mr C to listen to those calls but he had not taken up that offer. An investigation was carried out by the to establish if the staff concerned had dealt with Mr C's telephone calls in accordance with the council's communications guidelines. The guidelines set out how to deal with difficult customers and how to handle abusive telephone calls. It is clear that staff are advised to refer what they determine as difficult customers to their manager. Deciding whether someone is a difficult customer, or is being abusive, is at the discretion of the manager. The head of corporate services met with the team manager and, following that meeting, determined that she had dealt with the telephone calls in accordance with the guidelines.
 

Summary
Two separate neighbours of Mr C developed areas of public amenity adjoining his property without planning permission. The council served enforcement notices for the removal of this development. The neighbours complied with some parts of the enforcement notices but not others. Mr C raised this with the council.

The council advised that they had considered the situation but decided that the breaches of planning control that the enforcement notices had been intended to target had been satisfactorily resolved and, therefore, would not take further action. Mr C was dissatisfied with this decision and complained to the council who advised that the pursuit of enforcement action is a discretionary decision of the council and they were satisfied it had been properly arrived at. Mr C was dissatisfied with this response and raised his complaint with this office.

We decided that, as the decision to take enforcement action is at the discretion of the council, and they had advised Mr C why they had decided not to take action in this case, there was no evidence of the maladministration or service failure that Mr C had alleged and we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had wrongly withheld information from him and had refused to apologise to him, even though their customer services strategy was to do so when they were wrong and do their best to put things right. Mr C also complained that his complaint about the handling of his request for information was not dealt with properly under the council's complaints procedure. Mr C said that he wanted the council to apologise to him face-to-face and in writing.

We considered that there was an opportunity to try to resolve the complaint and asked the council if they would be prepared to apologise to Mr C. The council told us that while they acknowledged there had been a slight delay in publishing information, they did not feel there was cause for an apology. We could not become more involved because we do not have the power to comment on or to reconsider matters which have been the subject of investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint.

On complaint handling, the council acknowledged, with regret, that they had not responded to Mr C's formal complaint within the target time for complaints handling. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• apologise in writing to Mr C for not meeting the council's customer care standards in investigating his complaint.
 

Summary
Mrs C had a hip replacement and, as part of her recuperation, had to walk using crutches. She said that because the footpath near her home was full of holes and rubble, she was in danger of falling and she had to walk on the road which she considered to be a risk to her safety and welfare. Following a complaint made by Mrs C, the council repaired the area immediately in front of her property but she said the footpath on either side was still in a poor state of repair.

We found the last safety report carried out noted 'no defects found' during the inspection and the council said that the next inspection would be carried out shortly as per the stated frequency for safety inspections of six months. Following Mrs C's complaint to the council, a further 'ad hoc' inspection was carried out and as a result, minor repairs were instructed to the footpath.

In addition to safety inspections, the council carries out further inspections on an 'ad hoc' basis. This allows the council to build up a picture of the condition of all roads and footways within their area. Several factors are taken into account and this allows the council to apply a scoring system to objectively prioritise resources when programming major resurfacing works. They told us that, to date, it had not been possible to include the footpath near Mrs C's home in any major resurfacing works as it had not scored highly enough against numerous other competing schemes.

As the council had complied with their legal obligations under the Roads (Scotland) Act and acted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management and their own Safety Inspection Procedures and Guidance Manual, we did not uphold the complaint.