Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to handle a planning application reasonably and failed to handle her complaint appropriately.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had met their statutory obligations to make information about the application publicly available and had reasonably exercised their professional judgement in assessing the application. We found that the council's actions were reasonable and did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we found that there was an inconsistency in the report on the planning application which had not been identified by the council's complaint investigation. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and provided feedback to the council. However, we noted that this error did not make a substantive difference to the outcome of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A). Miss A resides in a privately owned care home. Mr C complained that the council failed to assess the suitability of another service user before placing them in the care home, and later failed to remove the service user from the care home in a timeous way when issues became apparent.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the actions of the council in assessing the service user's suitability for the care home were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also found that, whilst it took some time for the service user to be removed from the care home once issues were identified, the council had done all they reasonably could to minimise the issues and move the service user in a prompt manner. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the way that the council handled her complaint. Ms C was unhappy with the council's decision to change investigating officers late on in the process and to appoint a different officer. Ms C said the council had done this because they were unhappy with the conclusions of the first investigation, which had been critical of the council. She noted that the second investigation had reached a conclusion that was much less critical. Ms C was also unhappy with the way her Complaint Review Committee (CRC, the process previously used to investigate social work complaints) was conducted. She said there had been unexplained delays in holding the hearing and that, following the hearing, the council had issued an inaccurate decision letter which did not reflect the views of the panel.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council had acted unreasonably in the way that they handled the investigation and the way they administered Ms C's CRC hearing. The council had failed to evidence the reasons they gave for changing the investigating officer. They had also failed to keep records of the review of the first investigation, which led to the decision to change investigating officer. We noted that council staff also appeared to have attempted to influence the decision issued by the CRC after the hearing had concluded. Finally, we considered that the council had failed to communicate reasonably with Ms C following the CRC and it was unclear whether the council had accepted all the findings of the CRC and intended to implement them. We upheld all of Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C and her family for failing to handle her complaint reasonably or appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should reflect on the failings identified by this investigation to ensure that all relevant learning has been fedback to staff.

Summary

Mrs C, the sole homeowner in a council owned block of homes, complained about a unreasonable delay in arranging for mutual repairs to the property and a failure to keep her reasonably informed regarding when repairs would be carried out. We took no further action as the complaint was resolved on the basis of a reduction in the cost of the repair work in acknowledgement of the complaint received.

Summary

Mr C manages a direct payment on behalf of his two grandchildren. When the direct payment was set up the council exercised their discretion and permitted Mr  C to employ family relatives as personal assistants with the agreement that he would begin recruitment for independent personal assistants.

After some time, the council advised Mr C that he could no longer employ family members. The council also requested to observe the children in school as part of their social care assessment. Mr C complained that the council's policy regarding the employment of family members was unreasonable and and that they failed to explain their reason for visiting the children in school. Mr C also complained that the council did not properly follow their complaints procedure.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council's policy on the employment of family members was in line with national statutory guidance and that the council had acted reasonably in this regard. We also found that it was reasonable for the council to request to observe the children in school. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council did not contact Mr C to discuss his complaint nor did they respond within the required working timescale as stated in their complaint handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way the council handled two planning applications for a new house being built near to their home. They also complained that the actions of council officers at a planning meeting had been unreasonable, as the council officers had met with the applicant.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did find some omissions in the report of handling relating to the initial planning application, and we provided feedback to the council about this. However, on the whole, we concluded that the council's handling, processing and assessment of the planning applications were reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Regarding the meeting council officers had with the applicant, we found that this happened in order to check some information about the application. They did this at the committee meeting to avoid the need for the decision on the application to be deferred to another meeting. We considered that this was reasonable, and we noted that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for not explaining why the discussion was taking place at the meeting and for not including them in the discussion. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to investigate his complaints about anti- social behaviour properly, resulting in him being put at risk. Mr C said he had been threatened and harassed but the council had failed to act on his complaints, deliberately ignoring him so that a final warning issued to his neighbour could lapse.

We found that Mr C's complaints of anti-social behaviour had been investigated. When the council had been able to verify the complaints, they had taken action against Mr C's neighbour, including issuing a final warning. There was no evidence that one had been issued and allowed to lapse, or that Mr C had complained of direct threats to his safety. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to deal with his complaints about the level of service he had received. We found that the council had acknowledged a failure to respond timeously to Mr C's complaints and apologised appropriately. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint but made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to her contact about leasing a unit. Mrs C was in contact with the council's estates and planning departments in relation to leasing a unit in an industrial estate. It was found that Mrs C required planning permission to allow her to use the unit for a business that included a take-away element. Mrs C complained that throughout her contact with the estates department that they did not voice concerns over her use of the unit. Later, after her application for Change of Use was considered, she was informed that it was likely the estates department would refuse her application.

We found that the council had not communicated reasonably with Mrs C. We considered that the estates department did not manage Mrs C's expectations with respect to the viability of the proposed use of the unit, despite having sufficient information. The council were correct to advise Mrs C to seek planning advice on the use of the unit. However, we were of the view that the council could have alerted Mrs C earlier to the possible issues with the takeaway element. Therefore, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to communicate concerns about the proposed use of the unit. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Estates should include in advertisement particulars which type of class uses are acceptable for a property, if applicable.

Summary

Mr C, an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent, that the council failed to arrange a suitable care package within a reasonable time period. Mr A spent a long time in a care home despite only ever being a temporary resident. This had resulted in excessive costs being incurred by Mr A. Mr C said that Mr A should only have to pay the respite charge, which was substantially lower.

We found that the council had acted in line with the relevant legislation and guidance. Mr A had declined to co- operate with the council by allowing an assessment of his finances, resulting in his accommodation being charged at the standard rate. We also found that although Mr A had found the experience distressing, the council had made reasonable efforts to recruit more staff to cover his care needs and that his return home had not been unreasonably delayed by failings on the part of the council. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a cafe premises near his property. The complaint included issues relating to the operation of a kitchen in the basement of the cafe and the placing of seating and tables outside the front of the cafe.

In relation to the operation of a basement kitchen, Mr C stated that the council failed to enforce building standards within a reasonable period of time after becoming aware of the fact that the cafe was operating a kitchen in the basement. We found that the council had made efforts over a period of time to get the cafe owner to comply and remove the basement kitchen, however, the cafe owner did not comply. Given the period of time that had passed it was clear that negotiations were not successful. We noted that the council have discretion regarding whether or not they will take enforcement action. However, we considered that the council should have taken a proactive approach and confirmed if the current situation was acceptable to them and why, or take suitable enforcement action within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about a failure on the part of the council to address health and safety breaches in relation to the café's kitchen. We considered that the council are required to make their decision regarding the existence of the basement kitchen clear before it could be determined if the council required to seek further compliance with the health and safety matters raised. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the seating and tables, Mr C complained that the cafe had not applied for planning permission for outdoor seating and the council had failed to address this within a reasonable period of time. We found that the cafe owner had signed The Street Cafe Annual Agreement that stated that planning permission must be obtained. We noted that the council were aware of the fact that this had not been obtained. We considered that the council should have confirmed that they were content to accept the current position and explain why they did not consider planning permission was required or what steps would be taken to ensure compliance. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also considered that the cafe had breached the Street Cafe Annual Agreement in relation to several other areas. The council stated that the breaches were minor and they accepted them. We found that it was not reasonable for the council to make a determination on these matters until they had decided whether or not they accepted the seating outside the cafe without planning permission being obtained. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to clarify whether or not they intend to take enforcement action or exercise discretion in relation to a breach of the Street Café Annual Agreement and in relation to the creation and operation of a basement kitchen. The council should also apologise for taking a view on breaches of the Street Café Annual Agreement when it was not reasonable to do so until they had clarified their position on another breach relating to a lack of planning permission. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The council should clarify whether or not (i) they intend to take enforcement action in relation to a breach of clause eighth of the Street Café Annual Agreement or (ii) exercise discretion and accept the current position without planning permission, and provide reasons for doing so. The council should clarify (i) whether or not they intend to take enforcement action in relation to the creation and operation of a basement kitchen or (ii) exercise their discretion and accept the current position without building regulation requirements and explain their reason for doing so.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Where the council have been unsuccessful in asking a customer to comply with planning or building regulation requirements they should establish on a case by case basis a timescale in which they should reach a decision on whether or not they intend to take enforcement action or exercise their discretion in accepting the current position and provide reasons for doing so.
• Ensure there is a reporting mechanism within Development and Regeneration Services so that information can be shared about complaints received and breaches identified that impact on the decisions made by other departments.