Local Government

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.
 

Summary
Mr C’s complaint arose from an incident in a primary school playground, where Mr C's seven year old son was injured as a result of older boys drawing a skipping rope across his son's throat. The incident was not witnessed by an adult but was reported by Mrs C to the head teacher at close of school and was also reported to the police. As a result of the police investigation, charges were made against two boys, but the charges against one of them was dropped.

The head teacher's actions were outside jurisdiction. The investigation did not find that the Education Service had failed to take the matter seriously, nor that they had failed as an Education Service to record accurately details of the incident. Action to prevent recurrence fell to the head teacher.
 

Summary
Ms C complained on behalf of her mother about the way the council handled the application for planning consent for demolition of a two bedroom bungalow and construction of a two storey house granted by the council in respect of a neighbouring house which is within a Conservation Area.

There was no evidence, however, that the council failed to follow the appropriate procedures in respect of each of the applications. We also found that the council provided reasonable explanations of their actions in response to the complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C's neighbours installed security lighting, which impacted on the previously dark rear of his property. Following contact from the council, his neighbours made some adjustments but Mr C considered that the effect of the light on his bedroom remained unacceptable and constituted a statutory nuisance. He said it interfered with his health and sleeping pattern, and that the council had misinterpreted or ignored relevant guidance and had not taken into account the views of other independent people who had viewed the lights. When the council declined to take further action he complained but remained dissatisfied with their response and complained to SPSO.

He made a number of complaints to us based on to his belief that the light constituted a statutory nuisance. He also said that the council failed to deal with his complaint about the matter appropriately, as they did not view the problem at later stages of the complaints process and did not deal with his complaint in terms of the complaints procedure. We did not uphold his complaints about the issue of establishing whether the lights were a statutory nuisance, as it was clear that the council had taken appropriate steps to reach their decision on this. Mr C disagrees with the decision but he has the option of taking the matter to the sheriff if he considers the council are wrong in respect of the statutory nuisance. In relation to the other element of his complaint, it was clear to us that the council had responded reasonably.

Summary
Mr C complained about the withdrawal of a Disabled Person's Parking Blue Badge (the Blue Badge) that the council had given his autistic son, Master A. The council had given the Bule Badge in 2004, re-issued it in 2007, and withdrawn it in 2010.

The council acknowledged that when the Blue Badge was previously issued and re-issued to Master A they incorrectly applied the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007. By correctly applying the legislation in 2010, Master A did not qualify for a Blue Badge.

We did not uphold Mr C’s allegation that the council had refused to renew Master A’s Blue Badge. We confirmed that the legislation had been correctly applied in 2010. We noted that before Mr C brought the complaint to us the council had apologised to him that they had not correctly applied the legislation when the Blue Badge had been re-issued in 2007.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of complaints about unauthorised works being carried out on a neighbouring site. In particular he was concerned about the potential damage to a tree on the site. He also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

Our investigation found that the council had considered the complaint about alleged unathorised works in line with their Enforcement Charter and that they had responded to Mr C's complaint. We, therefore, did not uphold any of the complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to properly calculate his council tax and his water and sewerage charges. In addition, he complained that they issued numerous bills, which he considered were incorrect, failed to advise him of his right to appeal his charges, refused to clarify what he owed and improperly pursued him for outstanding monies.

We examined the background to the council tax and water and sewerage charges to which Mr C was liable and also reviewed the discounts and benefits to which he was entitled. We also examined the correspondence sent to him by the council. From our examination of the case it was clear that the council had correctly calculated his council tax and his water and sewerage charges and had explained very clearly, on a number of occasions, the reasons for their calculations. For this reason we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the condition of the road outside his house and the council's failure to appropriately assess it and prioritise it for re-surfacing. He was also dissatisfied with the way the council dealt with his complaint.

We did not uphold his complaints as our investigation found that the council had followed the appropriate procedures with regard to both the road and the handling of Mr C's complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that in 2007, contractors working for the council had, without warning removed a wooden fence and then a large section of his mother's hedge and hurdle fence that divided her property with her neighbour's property. Thereafter the contractors began to work on a joint drain, access to which was a manhole-type cover. Mr C stated the drain cover was re-sited without consultation and encroached into his mother's garden. In his view, the new location of the manhole is inappropriate as it is sited under his mother's hedge, which would need to be removed to provide access.

We did not uphold Mr C’s allegation that the council inappropriately moved the manhole and did so without consultation. We also did not uphold his complaint that the new location of the manhole is inappropriate.

We noted that before Mr C brought the complaint to us the council had apologised to him and his mother for the initial event that occurred in 2007 and had taken steps to ensure such incidents would not recur.