Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to recognise his wife, Mrs C, as the rateable occupier of a business. This business is owned by a larger company of which both Mr and Mrs C are directors, and Mrs C had entered into a lease with that company for the business. The council questioned whether the larger company and the business could be considered as being separate entities in terms of rateable occupancy and decided, for a number of reasons, that they could not. Mr C was also unhappy with how the council had handled his complaint about this issue. We decided that we could not uphold his complaint about the Council's refusal to consider Mrs C the rateable occupier of the business as this was a discretionary decision of the council. Although Mr C disagreed with that decision, this was not, in itself evidence of maladministration. We upheld the complaints handling aspects of his complaint. As the council had already apologised to Mr C for their mistakes and as the Chief Executive had requested that they carry out a review into how they handle correspondence, we made no recommendations.
 

Summary
Mr C lives in a small hamlet in rural Aberdeenshire. His complaint concerned the inclusion of a site for housing in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan in 2006. The site had an indicative capacity of five houses and a subsequent application for planning consent made in 2008 (but approved in 2010) for eight houses. Mr C considered that the inclusion of the site in the Local Plan, the application for planning permission, and objections to that application had been dealt with inappropriately. Our investigation did not, however, uncover any significant flaws in these processes.
 

Summary
When a neighbour cleaned the roof of a domestic garage with a power washer, paint flake debris landed in a garden belonging to Mr C's business. Mr C was concerned that the flakes might contain asbestos and that the land might be contaminated as a result. He reported this to the council, but was not happy with the action they took or with their response to his complaint. He then complained to SPSO. Our investigation found that the council could only take action if they found that the activity constituted a statutory nuisance. We found that they had taken appropriate steps to investigate, including a site visit and examining samples of the material. This had led them to the view that the event did not constitute a statutory nuisance. Although Mr C disagreed with this, it was for the council to decide how to respond to his concerns. We took the view that they acted appropriately in the circumstances. Mr C also complained about the council's complaints handling and communication with him. We found that on each occasion they had responded within their own timescales.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council broke an alleged 'silent agreement' between a councillor and the education authority that Roman Catholic children would not be refused a place at a local Roman Catholic school. When we investigated this, it became clear that the 'silent agreement' being referred to was a statement made in a public meeting many years ago, during an earlier consultation process. This was that where a placing request was made for such children at their local denominational school they would not be refused. Mr C told us, however, that although his child is Roman Catholic, they were refused a place at the local denominational school. On further examination, however, it became clear that this school was not the preferred one stated on their school placing request, and was in fact their second choice. Had the family selected the local Roman Catholic school as the preferred school on the placing request, a place would have been available at the time these were allocated.

Summary
Mr C cares for his sister, who has Down's Syndrome. He complained that Social Work Services had stopped providing road salt to him. They had provided this for about ten years, to allow him to keep the pavements around his property clear of snow in the winter. Mr C said he would not be able to provide the care that his sister needs if either he or his wife slipped on ice. He said the council had ignored the criteria for receiving community care services, specifically that of 'carers' health being put at risk'. Our investigation found, however, that the criteria on which Mr C relied in making his complaint referred only to social work clients whose needs had been assessed. In this case, Mr C's sister had not had a needs assessment carried out when the salt was first provided, and he refused to allow her to be assessed now. We concluded that it was therefore reasonable for the council to take the action that they had.

Summary
Mr A suffers from a degenerative muscular disease. His sister, Ms C, complained on his behalf. She explained that Mr A lived alone in a ground floor flat and moved about with the use of a wheeled zimmer. She told us that, as the council had failed to resolve access problems to his home, Mr A was virtually housebound. We noted that the council had agreed that the ramp to Mr A's home was too steep for use with his zimmer. Their architect, after inspection, had said that the safest and most appropriate method of access would be to install a step lift. Ms C and her brother did not find this solution acceptable. As, however, our investigation found that the council offered this after considering all the facts and after discussion with their professional officers, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. (It was Mr A's decision not to accept the council's offer of a step lift. He was free to make this choice even though it appears that installing a lift would resolve his access problems.) We did, however, uphold Ms C's other complaints. After investigation, we agreed that they had failed to carry out adaptation work to allow Mr A access to his front and rear gardens. They had also failed to discuss the close entry system with him prior to installation, and had failed to fit an entry system to his front door. All this meant that Mr A was, indeed, virtually house bound. Finally, there had been confusion over the number of housing application points to which Mr A was entitled. This was clarified as part of our investigation.

Recommendations
We recommend that South Lanarkshire Council:
• apologise to Ms C for giving her incorrect information;
• review the communication between the departments of social work services and housing and technical resources;
• apologise to Mr A for their failure to discuss the installation of the entry system with him; and
• formally apologise to Ms C and Mr A for the confusion over his medical points.

Summary
Mr C complained to us that the council had not thoroughly investigated his complaint against a school. He was banned from voluntary activity at the school after a discussion with a teacher in which he was perceived to have acted aggressively. He was not happy that after the formal investigation, the council took no further action, except to offer mediation in an attempt to rebuild Mr C's relationship with the school. Our investigation found that the council had adhered to the relevant guidelines in dealing with such matters and had fully considered Mr C's concerns.

Summary
Mr C lives on a main road opposite a public park. He was unhappy when a planning application was made to build a skate park on an open space in the park, and objected to the application. When the council approved the proposals, Mr C complained to them that the noise assessment was flawed; that there had been material changes in the proposals but the council had not considered them to be such; that there was a conflict of interest of a council officer (who was a skateboarder) working on the project; and that the access provided was not as agreed. We upheld only one of his complaints, however, that the council did not put plants in place to screen the skate park. Although the council explained why this did not happen, we were concerned that this meant that there had been no effective screening to reduce loss of amenity to local residents. We therefore recommended that the council take steps to see if they could resolve this by dense planting.

Recommendation
We recommend that Renfrewshire Council's planning services liaise with the council’s landscaping officer to evaluate whether an effective dense screen of planting can be introduced, compatible with existing trees and shrubs in the park.

Summary
Mrs C, a housing association tenant, was unhappy about the effect of a major road development close to her home. She said that the council did not investigate her concerns about the effect that the disruption associated with the work has had on her health, her quality of life and her human rights. Both Mrs C and the housing association were formally told some six years earlier about the planning application to build the road, but neither objected at the time. There was also a public enquiry into the plans, although Mrs C did not know about this until after it happened. After the work began, Mrs C complained to the council about excessive noise and hours of working, apparent cracking in her building and rat infestations, all of which she said were the result of the road works. Unfortunately, the works did take a long time and we recognise that Mrs C clearly experienced considerable disruption because of them. However, our investigation found that when she complained to the council they responded to her concerns and appropriately investigated the issues that she raised.

Summary
Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter Miss A about one of Miss A's Highers, for which the Scottish Qualifications Authority gave her no award. Mrs C was unhappy with the way in which the council and Miss A's secondary school handled her complaint. She said the council did not investigate her concerns about Miss A's case at the final stage of their complaints procedure, instead producing a rehash of their previous response. Some of Miss A's work had been damaged or was missing and Mrs C also said that the school and the council shielded a teacher, who she said was not held accountable for Miss A's lost and damaged work and subsequent poor marks. The council confirmed that since Mrs C's complaint, the school had taken steps to improve security for candidates' work. Our investigation found no evidence that the teacher had been shielded, and in fact the school had taken action to deal with the teacher's failings. Neither did we find evidence that the council had not investigated or responded properly to Mrs C's complaint.