Local Government

Summary
Mr C (a solicitor) complained on behalf of his clients that the council had accepted hearsay evidence in deciding that his clients were intentionally homeless. He further complained that the council's failure to tell his clients what information they had considered in coming to their decision was unreasonable, as it meant his clients were not able to refute it. Mr C also said that the decision was made by staff members connected to his client's ex-wife who worked in the office where the decision on his homeless status was made.

We found that Mr C's complaint about accepting hearsay evidence in coming to the decision was outwith our jurisdiction. This is because the SPSO Act says that the Ombudsman is not entitled to question a decision taken without maladministration. We found that this element of complaint was about the fact that Mr C's clients disagreed with the decision, rather than that the council had done anything wrong. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to tell his clients what information had been considered in coming to the decision, as we decided that they had acted in line with Scottish Government guidance on homelessness. The complaint in connection with Mr C's client's wife was found to be premature as he had not yet put that point to the council or completed their complaints process.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's actions in relation to the collection of his council tax. He was unhappy that sheriff's officers contacted him about collecting a surcharge that was the subject of a summary warrant. Although the council said they had sent all the relevant correspondence about this to his address, Mr C said he had not received any of it. He felt that such information should have been sent by recorded delivery. We found that there was no requirement for the council to do this, and noted that the sheriff who signed the warrant had accepted that posting the letters to Mr C was adequate. As our investigation indicated that the council had followed the appropriate process, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C was unhappy that a direct payment he had previously received for domestic cleaning services was withdrawn. He also thought it was unreasonable that the council had not offered him a maximisation assessment that would have established his ability to pay for this service.

Our investigation found that the council decided in 2010 to withdraw provision of domestic cleaning services for all service users, unless it was part of a package of personal care. All users were notified of the change and told that their current service would be reviewed. When Mr C was reassessed, it was found that he required support with domestic chores but had no personal care needs. The council, therefore, decided that he was no longer eligible for a direct payment to source such a service himself. They did not arrange an income maximisation visit, as they noted Mr C's total income during the reassessment and he did not indicate that he had any issues in relation to finance.

There was some confusion when he received a standard letter in error outlining direct payments to be made to him. However, the council wrote to him apologising for their error. The council also advised him to contact Social Work Services directly if his circumstances, either personal or financial, had changed since the reassessment was carried out in February 2011.
 

Summary
Mr C was unhappy with the way the council had dealt with his complaints about repairs to his windows and the anti-social behaviour of his neighbour. He said that necessary repairs to the windows had still not been carried out and that the council had taken no action against his neighbour.

We found that one window repair had already been completed. The second was in the process of being done and was expected to be completed by the end of the month. Mr C had first complained about his neighbour in 2005, then again in 2007 but had not raised the matter again until early 2011. The council and police had found no evidence to corroborate Mr C's complaints about his neighbour and were, therefore, unable to take any action. The council had, however, sent incident diaries for Mr C to complete and return whenever an incident occurred. We urged him to do so, to give the council the opportunity to investigate the matter.

As we found the council had acted reasonably in both the matters Mr C complained of we did not uphold his complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council discriminated against him by failing to provide a service (cutting and maintenance of a grass verge). The council had told Mr C that they had risk assessed the area and found that the verge could not be attended to without closing the road. Mr C disagreed and said he had provided examples of other similar locations that the council did maintain. Mr C complained that the status of the area he lived in had changed to his detriment because a restricted service was being provided. He also complained that, after questioning policy differences between council departments, he had asked for copies of the council's policies on rural and urban areas but had not received these.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. There was no evidence that the council had not investigated his claims about discrimination. Further, there was nothing to show that the status of the area where Mr C lives had changed, so his claim about a change in service provision was not related to a change in status. The council also clarified that they have no policy that differentiates between urban and rural areas so there was no document available to send to Mr C.
 

Summary
Ms C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for the erection of an upper storey extension to the side of a house on a neighbouring site. Ms C disagreed with the decision and maintained that the council had not taken account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations. Ms C was also unhappy with the council's handling of his complaint. Although Ms C was unhappy with the decision the council had taken, our investigation did not find any fault on the part of the council in processing the application
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to include a specific planning application on their weekly list. The council accepted that this error occurred but explained that, under the circumstances, it was not appropriate to revoke the planning consent. Mr C also raised a complaint about what he considered to be the council's unfair change to neighbour notification criteria in relation to the application.

We found that there was a mistake in the council's computer system which allowed this application to be omitted from the weekly list. As a result we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However as the council had taken appropriate steps following discovery of this mistake, we made no recommendations.

We also reviewed the circumstances behind the neighbour notification criteria and found that it was in compliance with planning law.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for the erection of an upper storey extension to the side of a house on a neighbouring site. Mr C disagreed with the decision and maintained that the council had not taken account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations. Mr C was also unhappy with the council's handling of his complaint. Although Mr C was unhappy with the decision the council had taken, our investigation did not find any fault on the part of the council in processing the application.
 

Summary
Mr C and Ms D were involved in extra-curricular activities at their son’s school. They were uncomfortable with the actions of another parent, who they felt was promoting unacceptable racist and sexist views among the school community. Ms D, in particular, felt the parent was using bullying behaviours to make it impossible for her to continue her involvement with the school and they decided not to have their younger son attend the school. Mr C and Ms D raised complaints with the school, but were dissatisfied with the conduct of the investigations, believing that assurances that had been made were not followed through. They were similarly dissatisfied with the council’s handling of the complaint and information provided by the council during that process.

Our investigation confirmed that the council dealt satisfactorily with these complaints. However, they did not carry out the investigations that Mr C and Ms D were led to believe would be carried out, and we upheld this element of their complaint. We did not uphold the complaint about the information given to Mr C and Ms D as we found it was generally appropriate.

Recommendation
We recommend that Glasgow City Council:
• apologise to Mr C and Ms D for the failure to investigate comments which were alleged to have been made.

Point of clarification - it was the nursery school from which the parents withdrew their younger son's application.
 

Summary
Ms C complained about the council's stair cleaning service which is compulsory for tenants where 50 percent or more of the houses are owned by the council. She said that the charge impacts disproportionately on low paid workers like her brother, who considers it unfair. The complaints we investigated were that the cost of the council’s compulsory charges for stair cleaning were not justified, and that the lack of choice, as a council tenant, about whether to participate in the scheme was unfair. The council provided a reasonable explanation of how the charge was calculated. They also explained that they had decided to make it compulsory in order to benefit the 80 percent of their tenants who were on housing benefit. These were discretionary decisions that the council were entitled to make and we cannot question them, despite the disproportionate impact on Ms C's brother.