Local Government

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.
 

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.