Local Government

Summary
Mrs C's neighbour notified Mrs C that he was applying for planning consent for dormer extensions. He assured her that no window was planned for the elevation facing her property. Mrs C checked the council's online planning portal and found that that was the case, so she did not object. The council's case officer then suggested changes to the submitted scheme, including a window in that elevation. However, his delegated report was not amended and the changed plans were not assessed, and Mrs C only became aware of the change when construction started. She complained that the plans had changed without anyone telling her; that there had been a delay in placing the amended applications on the council website; and that the council had been inconsistent in the handling of this application compared with the treatment of another nearby application. We upheld her complaints about the changes and placement of the amended application online, as the amended plans were not readily available and this meant that Mrs C did not know about the new window before construction started. We did not uphold the third complaint as we did not find inconsistency of treatment.

Recommendations
We recommend that Perth and Kinross Council:
• apologise to Mrs C for the shortcomings in dealing with the application;
and
• offer to meet the costs of Mrs C’s neighbour installing obscure glazing on
both panes of the side dormer window.
 

Summary
Mr C is a member of a residents' association. The council plan to build new houses in their area. Mr C complained that their group was not being consulted and their concerns were being ignored, in particular that they would suffer a loss of amenity garage space and play area. Our investigation showed that the council were aware of these factors but voted for the housing option. Mr C disagrees with this decision but as we found no evidence of maladministration on the part of the council in the way the decision was made we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow their anti-bullying policy in relation to recording and monitoring alleged incidents of bullying involving his son. The investigation found that the council had initially failed to complete the relevant forms as the school had allowed for a settling in period before using the forms. The council did, however, provide evidence that they had recorded all incidents of bullying and had used the appropriate forms as the school term had progressed.

Recommendation
We recommend that Inverclyde Council:
• ensure that their staff act in accordance with their anti-bullying policy in
relation to the use of the appropriate forms for recording and monitoring.
 

Summary
Mrs C's complaint was made on behalf of her husband, a long term wheelchair user. Mrs C complained that the house allocated by the council was not suitable for her husband's needs and they were refusing to make further adaptations. In particular, she said that the decisions being taken not to upgrade or make changes to her home were discriminatory, unreasonable or were as a result of a failure to properly consider her requests. She said that these were made on the basis of the recommendations of an occupational therapist (OT) whose assessment was inaccurate. Mrs C wanted the council to arrange for assessment to be carried by an independent OT and heating engineer. The council responded to our enquiry explaining that they had agreed to a re-assessment by occupational therapy but this would not be an independent assessment. This was not an option the council could agree to as it challenged the fundamental principle of professional objectivity in the application of the council's agreed assessment processes. Not all the things Mrs C asked for were agreed to. However, from the further assessment carried out, recommendations were made for some works to be carried out, and further consideration was given to requests made by Mrs C and her husband about changes to their home. We were satisfied that there was no evidence to support the complaint of discrimination or that the council had acted unreasonably in the decisions taken about adaptations or changes that Mrs C and her husband wished carried out.
 

Summary
An MSP complained to us on behalf of two constituents who said that works carried out by the council to a neighbouring flat, which required the temporary disconnection of the mains water supply, damaged the valves controlling the water pressure in their homes. The council told us that the water supply was turned off as an emergency and no advance notice could be given. It was clear that the council had investigated the complaints and found no evidence that the drop in water pressure was as a result of anything they had done. We did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence of fault in the way the council handled the matter.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the the council unreasonably pursued him for water and sewerage charges for 2008/09 and 2009/10 in respect of his current home. He considered the council's pursuit of those charges to be unreasonable because he was told verbally in February 2010 that he had no outstanding debts to the council, and because the council did not send information or demands for these payments to him at his current address until October 2010. In fact they had sent these documents to the wrong address. As a result of our enquiries the council reconsidered the matter and decided to write off the charges for the two years in question. As Mr C was satisfied with this, the complaint was resolved.
 

Summary
Mr C owns a flat in a tenement block in central Edinburgh which he lets out. In March and September 2008 the council served two statutory repairs notices on owners of the block under section 24(1) of The City of Edinburgh District Council Confirmation Order Act 1991. Mr C was unaware of the notices until about a week before the works were due to start. He complained that the council failed to serve notice on him of the repairs. Our investigation established that this was the case and that in drawing down the list of owners to be served, Mr C's flat was wrongly numbered.

Summary
Mrs C complained that work undertaken by the council had resulted in an increase in the amount of water collecting at the rear of her property. The council visited the site and told her that they did not consider that the work carreid out had increased this. We found that the council had reasonably investigated whether an increase in the amount of water collecting had occurred and that there was no objective evidence that the amounts had in fact increased.
 

Summary
Mr C was involved in an incident that led to the council banning him from fishing for five years. He appealed this in May 2009, but the ban was upheld. In January 2011, he complained about this to the council and when he was unhappy with their response he brought the complaint to SPSO. We did not look at the ban itself as Mr C had brought this to us too late (outside the normal 12 months within which we will look at a complaint). We did, however, look at his concerns about how the council handled his complaint. We found that Mr C disagreed with the council's decision, but that the council had looked into the matters he had raised. There was no evidence that they had done anything wrong when handling his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that a Council joiner refused to leave his home when attending with a gas engineer and housing officer. This was following a visit by the Council to force entry, if necessary, to carry out a gas inspection. Mr C alleged that the gas engineer was not qualified and placed the incorrect type of warning sticker on the boiler. He also complained that the Council failed to deal with his complaint effectively, and in line with their procedures. We did not find sufficient evidence to show that the joiner had refused to leave Mr C's house and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. We also did not uphold his concerns about the gas engineer as the Council's external auditors were satisfied with the action taken. We did, however, uphold his complaint that the Council failed to respond to his complaint in line with their procedures. We found that the Council did not comply with their timescales when responding to the complaint. As they had already apologised for this earlier in the process, however, we made no further recommendations.