Local Government

Summary

Mr C lived adjacent to a council house. There was water ingress into Mr C's property, and his roofing contractor felt that a chimney he shared with the council property was part of the problem. Mr C contacted the council, and he said they told him to take no action to repair the chimney, and that they would inspect their property and sort the problem. The council denied giving Mr C this advice, and it took them a year to gain access to their property and inspect it. The council decided they would not arrange removal of the chimney. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably told him to take no action to repair the chimney and that they unreasonably decided not to remove it.

We found that Mr C and a council officer had differing recollections of what was said about what the council would do. As there was no independent evidence from anyone who witnessed the conversation, we could not prove exactly what was said. We also found that, although Mr C disagreed with the councils' decision not to arrange removal of the chimney, there was no obligation on the council to arrange for removal, and they explained clearly to Mr C why they would not do so. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council delayed in gaining access to their property to inspect for water ingress. We found that the delay was unreasonable and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As the council apologised to Mr C for the delay, we made no recommendations. However, we did feed back to the council about seeking to avoid such delays in future.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about social work involvement in the care her late mother received whilst in a care home. Mrs C considered that the way the council handled her complaint was unreasonable and that the action plan they created as a result of the complaints investigation did not adequately address the failings identified.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint about the handling of her complaint as we found it had not been acknowledged within the appropriate timescales.

We took independent advice in relation to the council's action plan from a social work adviser. We found that whilst the action plan points themselves may have been reasonable, insufficient information had been supplied to Mrs C to allow her to understand how these had been implemented by the council. We also found that the action plan did not cover an area where failings had been identified. We considered this was unreasonable as the council had an adult support and protection role in this connection. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the complaints handling failing and for failing to provide Mrs C with information to evidence how the action plan would be implemented. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Issue an amended action plan that shows how the council have learned from Mrs C's complaint and will prevent failings from recurring.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Timescales for acknowledging complaints as set out in the complaints handling procedure should be met.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular, that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the new development on his property. He also complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action in relation to an alleged breach of planning control.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We considered that the assessment of the planning application in relation to the impact on Mr C's property, in terms of privacy and overlooking, was unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of his complaint. However, in making recommendations to the council in light of this finding we noted that they had, prior to our investigation, taken action to suggest to the applicant that additional screening be installed to address Mr C's concerns about overlooking.

In reference to enforcement action we were satisfied that the council had take action in line with their monitoring and enforcement charter and we found no failings. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on Mr C's property. 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:

• All representations made against a planning application should be taken into account in compiling the report.
• A thorough assessment of proposals against the development plan policies and supplementary guidance should be carried out.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to reasonably uphold access rights to a field. Mr C was of the view that the landowner had unreasonably locked the gate without providing a stock gate or a stile. Mr C noted that the public had accessed the field for over 20 years. The council contacted the landowner, who confirmed that there was now livestock in the field and that the gate had to be locked to keep the animals in.

The council cited the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code as guiding parameters for their decision not to take enforcement action against the landowner for locking the gate. We found that the council had given due time and consideration to all of the issues brought before them, and had assessed a number of different sources of evidence. The council have stated that they expect the gate to be unlocked at times when no livestock are in the field. We confirmed that it is not for this office to give a definitive intepretation of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, or the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. We noted that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 sets out in section 28 that it is for a Sheriff to determine the existence and extent of access rights. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

While Mr C did not ask us to investigate how the council handled his complaint, during our investigation we observed that the complaints handling fell below the standard that we would expect. We have therefore made a recommendation that the council apologise to Mr C for this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unacceptable delay in responding to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to investigate and act on her reports of antisocial behaviour in her building.

We found that Ms C phoned the council a number of times to report what she felt to be antisocial behaviour relating to a neighbour. The council gave Ms C advice on what to do about reporting specific incidents of antisocial behaviour when they were actually happening. When Ms C escalated her concerns, the council investigated her reports of antisocial behaviour by discussing the situation with Ms C, gathering evidence from other relevant parties, and assessing that evidence to determine that, in the council's view, there was no antisocial behaviour. While Ms C disagreed with that view, her disagreement was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing by the council.

Ms C also complained about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that the council's handling of her complaint was in keeping with their complaints handling procedure, as they investigated and responded to the key points of her complaint.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.