Local Government

Summary
As part of the Edinburgh Trams project, the City of Edinburgh Council have carried out works to alter the road network in some areas of Edinburgh City Centre. The changes to the road network to support the new tram infrastructure were carried out using a series of public consultations in conjunction with Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).

The council decided to relocate the disabled parking bays in Frederick Street from near Princes Street to near George Street as part of this programme. Mrs C raised a number of specific issues about this change. These included the accessibility of the new location, the process of consultation (which she felt did not include disability groups or interaction with the blue badge scheme), and an assurance she said the council had given to reverse the change when possible. Mrs C was also unhappy with the reasons given to support the change and said that the changes breached her human rights and the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Our investigation looked at the regulations that councils must follow when applying for TROs and at guidance issued by the Disability Rights Commission and the Scottish Government. As changes to road management can only be made as part of the TRO process, our investigation was restricted to considering whether the process had been followed out appropriately.

During the investigation, we found that the council had complied with the guidance and procedures. This included appropriate consultation with disability groups and compliance with the appropriate guidance. There was no link between the blue badge scheme and the positioning of disabled spaces that the council needed to consider and the reasons the council gave were reasonable. We found no evidence that the council had given a specific assurance that the change would be reversed.

While we did not uphold any aspect of the complaint, we accepted that Mrs C had been affected by the change. We noted that there would likely be a further opportunity for Mrs C and disability groups to comment on the change as part of any future TRO which would follow completion of the tram scheme itself.

Summary
Mr C asked the council to provide a larger household waste bin for his property. The council told him that their policy is to provide a single household waste bin to
households with up to four family members, to be emptied fortnightly. They offered to work with him to identify an appropriate solution, and suggested that he carry out a waste monitoring exercise to assist with this. Mr C was unhappy with this, as he had previously carried out a similar exercise and felt that his family circumstances meant that a larger bin was the solution. He complained to us that the council’s response was unreasonable because they suggested that he participate in a second waste monitoring exercise and because he felt the council’s procedure for collecting excess waste was unreasonably time consuming and illogical.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. In responding to his request for a larger bin, the council explained their policy and offered assistance to explore potential alternative solutions to the problems Mr C was facing. Mr C decided to reject that offer and we found that the council’s responses in respect of his complaint were reasonable. In terms of the council’s procedure for collecting excess waste, Mr C simply disagrees with the council’s decision. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that policies about the frequency of waste collection and the size and type of waste receptacles that the council will collect are for the council to decide. The SPSO Act says that where an organisation has the right to take a decision we cannot consider a complaint about the decision unless there is evidence that something went wrong in taking it. In Mr C’s case, there was no evidence that the council’s decision was not properly taken. Mr C clearly disagrees with the procedure for collecting excess waste but this was not in itself evidence of maladministration or service failure. We therefore could not consider
that complaint further.

Summary
Mrs C complained that she was unfairly prevented from purchasing a lair in a cemetery where deceased relatives were buried, and that this caused her considerable distress.

While we recognised that Mrs C was clearly upset about the council’s decision, we explained that our role is to check that proper procedures and policies are in place and that these are being followed properly by public services. If we find that that a council followed the proper procedure and policies when making their decision we cannot take the complaint further.

On investigating this complaint, we asked the council to send us copies of the relevant policies and procedures. We were referred to their 'Operating procedures and conditions on interments and cemeteries', which came into force in 2001. This confirms that the council have the discretion to allow or refuse the purchase of lairs. 

In response to Mrs C’s initial complaint, the council’s chief executive wrote to explain that at the time of her request restrictions to the pre-purchasing of lairs were in place.  They said that a decision was taken in 2009, based on the Operating Procedures, not to sell burial rights without a burial taking place, to ensure sustainability of the cemetery.

The council apologised to Mrs C for the delays in responding to her complaint and that the information on their website had not been updated. The council said that they would make the information publicly available and that a letter would be circulated to funeral directors and the clergy in the event of restrictions being placed on the advance sale of lairs in other cemeteries.

Summary
Ms C complained about the council’s decision to agree to three retrospective planning applications by her neighbour. She said that in deciding the application the council did not take her circumstances into account and failed to take account of their own policies and procedures. Ms C was concerned that the council did not consider the applications together for their cumulative effect which she felt showed that her neighbour’s property was being developed as a business. She said that concerns about the effect of contaminated water and drainage were not dealt with. Ms C also felt that reports put to the council committee were flawed. After the council granted the applications Ms C was also unhappy that she received no updates about monitoring of the site.

To assist us, we obtained advice from one of our professional planning advisers. On the basis of the advice received we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We concluded that the council appropriately determined each application on its merits. We noted that when considering the third application they did refer to the previous two and that the drainage policy referred to was more a matter for building control rather than the planning process. We found that the access issues had been considered and that an error relating to Network Rail’s view of the proposals was not critical. The council also granted the applications provided the developer meets certain conditions. This is to ensure that the property remains in private use and is not used for business. The council said they would monitor the site. They confirmed to us that there has been no evidence of unauthorised activity noted nor have they received allegations of any breach of consent since the application was granted. Ms C had not asked them to keep her up to date with these activities and so we did not uphold the complaint that they should have done so.

Summary
Mrs C complained that, when she complained about her son’s deputy head teacher, the council’s education department failed to conduct a fair investigation or to handle the complaint within a reasonable time. She also said that they did not give her enough information about the outcome of their investigation into her complaint.

From our enquiries it became apparent that a better approach to investigating Mrs C’s complaint would have resulted in a more timely response. While we were concerned about the council’s handling of Mrs C’s complaint, we did not find any evidence to support her claim that the conduct of the investigation was unfair.

Recommendations
We recommended that:
• the Director of Education and Lifelong Learning issue an apology to Mrs C for the way her complaint was handled and for the delay in response.

We also recommended that when, for clear and justifiable reasons, the council are unable to issue a decision on a complaint within the timescale in their complaints handling procedures, they should, in agreement with the complainant, set revised limits on any extended timeline for bringing the investigation to conclusion. This should be made within the complaints procedure.

Summary
Ms C lives in a flat owned by a housing association in an area where a number of
council-owned properties have been demolished. After the demolition she complained to the council that she was experiencing increased vibration in her home and that cracks had appeared. She said that the vibration was caused by passing trains, that it was a statutory nuisance and that the demolition work was responsible for this. She applied to the council to be rehoused and felt that in the circumstances she should receive priority status for this. She did not receive this status, and she was not rehoused although she remains on the waiting list. She asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with how the council investigated her concerns about the vibrations and how they handled her housing application. She felt they failed to consider all the circumstances when they refused to award her priority status.

We did not uphold Ms C’s complaints. We found that the council and the landlord
appropriately investigated the vibrations and cracking. Their engineers made joint
inspections, and the landlord accepted that the vibrations and cracking did not result from demolition. The council also explained the steps they had taken to try to assess the effect the vibrations were having, so that they could decide whether to review Ms C’s housing priority. They could not measure these at the time as they did not have the appropriate equipment and decided not to take this further (although they placed an order for equipment). We took the view that they were entitled to decide this and that their actions in the circumstances were not unreasonable. As a result of our enquiries, however, they also agreed to make an objective measurement of the vibrations, although not with a view to taking environmental enforcement action. The outcome will instead be fed to their Property Services Division to assist them in assessing whether they should reprioritise Ms C’s housing application.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to properly deal with his planning application for an extension to his home. He said that the council lost documents and unnecessarily delayed their decision to grant planning consent. After consent was granted, Mr C raised his concerns with the council about the time the process had taken.

We reviewed the statutory framework within which this decision was made. This
included:
• The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review
Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2008, and
• The Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2008

In addition we considered the supporting Scottish Government Planning Circulars, Circulars 4 and 7, North Lanarkshire Council's Scheme of Delegation and Policy HSG 12 'House Extensions' from North Lanarkshire Council's Southern Area Local Plan.

Our investigation found that consent was granted eight working days outwith the
statutory two month period during which a planning authority should usually determine an application.

We found that although the council did not determine the application within two months this is not, in itself, maladministration. The law provides for such delays and gives the applicants an avenue of appeal. However, insofar as the council did delay the validation of the application by failing to ensure that the scanned plans were passed to the planning officer when first submitted, we upheld the complaint.

The council accepted that they caused the initial delay in this process and have
apologised to Mr C for this. For this reason, and because they had demonstrated that they have put in place procedures to try and ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future, we had no further recommendations to make.

Summary
Mr C, a member of a local community forum, raised concerns about how the council handled a consultation about the proposed development of land through their draft Local Plan. He and others felt that the community forum had been excluded and that communities bordering the proposed development site had not been meaningfully involved. They also said the council mishandled the process by not providing clear proposals, not recognising the true number of individual objectors and not complying with statutory requirements about public notices.

We did not uphold any of these complaints. We recognised that local people felt very strongly about the proposals, which created a swathe of new housing that people felt would connect separate existing communities. Residents in local villages were concerned about the effects of this and the loss of village status. However, it was not for us to decide whether the council broke the law or to question the professional judgement of their planning officers. Our focus was on administrative processes, and whether the council followed them properly and acted reasonably. We obtained advice from our professional planning adviser about relevant legislation and good practice. He said that the council acted reasonably during the process, giving reasonable explanations for their actions when Mr C complained. They might have done more to ask the community forum for their views, and provide information to committee members about a survey carried out by the forum. However they had received comments from a number of sources and held public meetings, though not all of these were well attended. Our adviser also said that some of the documents on which Mr C based his concerns were not relevant to the consultation. In the circumstances, we made one recommendation about objection letters.

Recommendations
We recommended that, for the avoidance of doubt, the council amend their guidance notes on the form for formal objection and representation of support to say that only the signatory to the form will be formally registered as an objector; and explain why.

Summary
Mr C is the father of a boy who was temporarily excluded from secondary school. He complained that the council did not reasonably investigate his complaints. In the course of our investigation, we looked at the council’s Management Circular No. 8: Procedures Governing the Exclusion of Children and Young People from School (the circular) which lays out the procedures that must be followed when pupils are excluded.

The council gave us information about how the school handled the exclusion. This showed that the school did not comply with some sections of the circular. They did not arrange a meeting within seven days of the date of exclusion, and there was no evidence of a homework programme being sent to the excluded pupil or tutorials being offered on his return to school. They did not use relevant forms and the information that the school recorded did not reasonably cover the information to be recorded on these forms. We saw no evidence that the school investigated the complaints. We therefore considered the response sent to Mr C to be unreasonable and noted that the council previously accepted that it was not in line with their guidance.

Recommendations
We recommended that:
• the council apologise to Mr C that they did not reasonably investigate or respond to the complaints lodged;
• the school revise their procedures to ensure that the terms of the circular are
properly fulfilled, and the council audit the school’s revised procedures; and
• the council ensure that senior staff from the school participate in the first wave of
the refresher sessions on handling formal complaints that they are planning.

Summary
Mr C lives in a house owned by the council. After he moved in he redecorated, and laid fitted carpets. Later that year the council installed a new heating system in the house, as part of a planned improvement programme. There was some internal damage to the property as a result. The council paid Mr C a disturbance allowance of £100 and carried out some repairs. Mr C said, however, that he was left with marks on his walls, and with unsightly holes in the carpets and lino due to the different size of the new radiators. The council offered to send a carpet fitter to see if he could mend the carpets but Mr C declined the offer as he felt that they could not be mended. He sought compensation from the council, and when this was refused, he complained that the council told him that loss adjusters would investigate his claim, but the adjusters did not actually go to his house to inspect the damage. He also felt that they did not calculate his costs appropriately.

We asked the council for more information about this. They explained that their normal practice is that adjusters do not inspect a property, but instead rely on information from the council. They employ the adjusters to decide whether the council are legally liable for a claim. This usually means that the claimant would need to show that the council did not take reasonable care, broke a contract or did not follow a written law. Council Services provide information to the loss adjusters as it is not possible for the adjusters to visit each individual claimant. The adjusters said that the marks on the walls were covered by payment of the disturbance allowance and that the council were not liable for the damage to the carpets. After considering this information we decided that the council in fact followed their normal practice and that this was not unreasonable in the
circumstances. We therefore did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. We did, however,
make two recommendations as we considered that there had been confusion over what Mr C was told the disturbance allowance covered.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the confusion caused. We also recommended that, should a disturbance allowance be part of the council’s new scheme for such works, the guidance should clearly explain what it covers.