Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained about the City of Edinburgh Council (the council's) handling of a series of complaints about their management of projects to control small poster advertising within the city.  Mr C also complained about the tendering process for an advertising contract.

Mr C said multi-sided drums for sticking posters to had been put in place as a trial project in 2003.  Although the project had meant to be reviewed after a year, this had not happened.  Over the following twelve years, more drums had been added throughout the city.  Mr C had complained the project was not properly managed and that the council had no control over it.  He said the council had taken an unreasonable length of time to respond to his complaint and had provided an inaccurate response.

Mr C said the council had not responded at all to his complaint about tendering for advertising contracts.  He considered this unreasonable given the length of time the council had taken.

Mr C said he had complained about a specific site where advertising was being placed without the appropriate permission being given by the council.  When permission was requested, it was denied, but the council failed to take enforcement action.

Mr C also complained the council had provided inaccurate responses to his complaints.  He said he had proved this using information he had obtained from the council.

Mr C said none of his complaints had been handled reasonably by the council.  He also suggested the council's responses had been inaccurate and confusing.

The council accepted they had taken too long to respond to Mr C's complaints and that in one case, they had not responded at all.  They said they had received a significant amount of correspondence from Mr C about the same issues.  The council did not accept their complaint responses were inaccurate, confusing or misleading.

We found the council's handling of Mr C's complaints was unreasonable and failed to follow their own complaints procedure.  The council had not responded at all to one of Mr C's complaints.  Although the council had accepted there were delays in responding, we did not find evidence they recognised the length of these delays, and they had not provided an explanation for the failure to respond at all to one of Mr C's complaints.

We found the council's response to Mr C's complaint about advertising drums was inaccurate and that they had failed to keep appropriate records about the project.  The council were unable to provide evidence of any project management or assessment and it was unclear how the project could have been assessed for success or failure.  Although the council's internal correspondence accepted Mr C's complaint had identified areas of risk to the council they did not indicate to Mr C whether his complaints had been upheld.

We found the council had generally failed to handle Mr C's complaints reasonably.  He had been able to demonstrate that their responses were inaccurate with information he had obtained from them following their responses to his complaints.  We found the council had failed to follow their complaints handling procedures when dealing with any of his complaints and that staff appeared unaware of their responsibilities in this regard.

We found there were significant concerns about the failure to keep proper records about the advertising projects and the continual postponement by the council of a full assessment of them.  This was despite repeated statements by the council to Mr C that the projects had been reviewed.

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• provide a full response to Mr C's complaint 201508737 addressing each of the points raised by him;
• carry out a full review of the complaints handling in these cases to establish the lessons to be learnt for handling future complex complaints;
• provide evidence that all the officers involved in responding to these complaints have undergone complaints handling training;
• conduct a full review of their management of all the various advertising projects from their inception as proposed in 2012 and provide their findings to the Ombudsman;
• provide evidence of the actions taken to improve internal communication in view of the acknowledged failings in this case; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Overview In April 2007, the complainant (Ms C), the mother of four children, was made unintentionally homeless from her home in a village some distance from Perth. Ms C and her partner applied to Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for rehousing. The family were first accommodated in a bed and breakfast guesthouse in the village but were later allocated the temporary let of a Council house in Perth in August 2007. Ms C and her partner were anxious that disruption to their children's education was minimised. Ms C stated that when she made enquiry of the costs of transport to the village for two of her children, she was told that her outlay would be met. Specific complaints and conclusions The complaints which have been investigated are that: (a) Ms C was not properly informed directly by the Council about the travel costs for two of her children (not upheld); (b) when Ms C asked a NHS Health Visitor working with homeless families, she claims she was assured that travel passes would be issued for her children but that she would have to meet her own costs of accompanying those children (no finding); and (c) the Council's decision to fund Ms C's children's travel costs from the time of her complaint failed to address the substantial costs she had already incurred (not upheld). Redress and recommendation The Ombudsman recommends that the Council inform him of the outcome of their reassessment of policy. The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Summary
Miss C complained on behalf of her aunt (Mrs A), a tenant of the council.  Mrs A lived in a property formerly tied to her husband's employment.  After her husband's retirement and subsequent death, the council did not take steps to offer a tenancy to Mrs A, meaning that Mrs A lived in the property for over six years without a written tenancy agreement, until the council offered her a Scottish Secure Tenancy. Once Mrs A signed the agreement, the council made arrangements to survey the property and identify outstanding repair works.

A number of issues were noted, including a leaking roof and dampness, and the council undertook to carry out repairs.  However, Mrs A was not satisfied with the condition of the property and wished to move to a smaller property.  Miss C contacted the council on behalf of Mrs A to make enquiries about moving and to seek updates on repair works.  Miss C was not satisfied with the time it had taken the council to arrange for the repair works and she complained to the council.

Miss C had expressed concern that her aunt's property was not wind and watertight and was not suitable for her aunt to live in.  Miss C complained further that the council took an unreasonable length of time to complete the repair works.  Miss C also said that the council's communication regarding the repair works was poor.  The council said that while progress in completing the repairs might have seemed slow to Mrs A, there were reasons for the delays, and that overall the council acted reasonably in relation to the works.

The council explained to me that they transferred their housing stock and housing management staff to Glasgow Housing Association in 2003.  The council said that this transfer did not involve tied houses, and therefore did not include the property Mrs A resided in.  The council said that they should have taken steps to normalise Mrs A's succession to a tenancy in 2007 but added that this did not happen because of the lack of housing management staff.  I considered that the council's failure to make suitable provisions for the management of tied houses was unacceptable and that this failure contributed to the circumstances about which Miss C complained.

Regarding the council's responsibilities to Mrs A once the tenancy commenced, I was critical of their failure to undertake an inspection before the tenancy commenced.  I also noted that once the survey was undertaken, the council unreasonably failed to consider whether the property was acceptable accommodation in terms of the tolerable standard (a statutory standard for quality of housing).  I was concerned that serious health and safety issues were outstanding for several months from the beginning of the tenancy and I considered that it was unreasonable that the council failed to consider whether Mrs A should have been offered alternative accommodation until the repairs had been completed.  I was also critical of the time it took the council to start the repair works and I noted a number of delays that I considered to have been avoidable.  I concluded that the council had failed to meet a number of their statutory responsibilities as a social landlord as well as their responsibilities in terms of the tenancy agreement.  In view of this, I upheld Miss C's complaint and made two recommendations.

I also considered the council's communication with Mrs A and Miss C.  I noted that the council had not told Mrs A about the works that would be undertaken and how long it would be before completion of these works.  I was also critical that the council failed to provide a single point of contact for information and queries about the repairs, and I found a number of instances where the council had failed to respond to Miss C's emails.  In this respect I concluded that the council had acted unreasonably.  I upheld Miss C's complaint and made two further recommendations.

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mrs A for the significant delay in repairing her rented property;
• abate (refund) Mrs A's rent in full for the period between 1 May 2014 and the date the major repair works were completed;
• issue a written apology to Mrs A for failing to provide reasonable updates on the works; and
• issue a written apology to Miss C for the communication failings identified in this investigation.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about the actions of Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) following it being identified that the land on which their home is situated might be contaminated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to respond in a timely manner to correspondence from Mr and Mrs C and their solicitors and to include them in relevant meetings (partially upheld); and
• (b) failed efficiently to handle arrangements for Mr and Mrs C's temporary decant to enable demolition of their home, remediation of the land, and a replacement house to be constructed (partially upheld to the extent that the Council could have acted earlier to confirm decant arrangements).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the circumstances of this complaint to ascertain whether guidelines should be produced for dealing with future similar circumstances.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and have started a process of review.

Summary
Mr C complained to us about the way the council handled a planning application for a development in the rear garden of a hotel next to his mother (Mrs A)'s property.  Mr C raised a number of concerns about the handling of the matter by the council's planning service including issues around neighbour notification; the description of the proposed development; the need for a design statement (required for some proposed developments within conservation areas, which Mr C said applied in this case); inaccuracies in the submitted plans; and considerations about environmental health, potential noise and light pollution, and potential daylight and sunlight restrictions caused by the proposed development.  He also complained that representations from the local preservation trust objecting to the proposal had been disregarded, and that the council made their decision before the statutory deadline given to the community council to respond to the planning application had passed.  In addition, Mr C complained that the structure that was built was different to that for which permission was given by the council.

We took independent planning advice on this complaint.  Although we found that in some cases, the council's actions had been reasonable or had been decisions that they were entitled to take in the course of their consideration of the development, there were a number of aspects to their handling of the matter that we were critical of.

We found that the council should have sought to change the applicant's description of the structure, as it did not accurately reflect the permission being sought and may have misled interested parties; they acted unreasonably in not requiring a design statement to be submitted with the application, which my planning adviser told me had major consequences for the assessment of the application; the council delayed in logging an objection received and the handling report stated that no representations had been received.  This was a serious omission which also was consequential to the way in which the application was subsequently handled. We found that the council failed to complete a daylight and sunlight assessment; the development was not properly assessed for its impact on the conservation area that applied to the location; and the decision was made prior to the end of the time allocated for statutory consultation with the community council.

In relation to Mr C's complaint that the final structure differed from what was applied for, my adviser told me that there is no specific requirement on the council in relation to how much an application can vary: this is for them to decide.  However, in this case, the council failed to appropriately log the objection made, which had a knock-on effect in relation to the council's decision to treat some of the variations as minor so, on balance, I upheld Mr C's complaint about this.

In view of all of these failings, based on the advice received from my adviser, I recommended that the council should consider taking enforcement action or discontinuance under section 71 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.  I also found that the council had failed to respond adequately when Mr C had raised his concerns with them.

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  review their procedures for ensuring that properly made representations on an application are registered without delay and then taken into account for the purposes of the assessment of the application;
• (ii)  consider whether a system to record on file all relevant details found on a site visit against a comprehensive, standard checklist should be introduced;
• (iii)  consider the options for enforcement and/or whether it would be appropriate to pursue a section 71 discontinuance or alteration order;
• (iv)  also take this matter into account when considering what action to take to remedy the failings we have identified in complaint (a) above.  This should include Mr C's comments about the roof panels;
• (v)  issue a written apology to Mr C for all of the failings identified in this report; and
• (vi)  make all of the officers involved in the handling of both the application and Mr C's complaint aware of our findings.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) brought this complaint to the SPSO on 26 April 2013 on behalf of the owners of a nightclub, (Company A).  He complained that Company A had been forced to spend a large amount of money on sound proofing and noise reduction measures at the nightclub because South Ayrshire Council (the Council) unreasonably imposed a potentially unenforceable planning condition when they granted consent for a planning application in 2000.  The planning permission was for flats, to be built adjacent to the nightclub, which were built in 2001.  Mr C has raised concerns that the flats were built without appropriate sound attenuation measures in their construction and that this led to complaints from residents, which ultimately meant that Company A had to make substantial changes to their property to allow them to continue operating as a nightclub.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council unreasonably imposed a potentially unenforceable planning condition on planning application X (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• cover the full cost of works which Company A have incurred in undertaking sound proofing and noise reduction measures at their nightclub, based on Company A providing appropriate invoices; and
• apologise to Company A for the time, effort and expense which has resulted from the Council's maladministration.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which The Highland Council (the Council) dealt with an allegation of examination malpractice against his son (Mr A).  In particular, he said that they failed to follow Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) guidance.

Specific complaint and conclusions
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed unreasonably to follow SQA guidance on candidate malpractice when dealing with an allegation involving Mr A (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• provide Mr A with a letter of apology for the failures identified;
• make their secondary schools aware of the outcome of this complaint and of the importance of following available guidance; and
• liaise with SQA about the means by which they should document their procedures for dealing with such matters.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) failed to ensure that the developer of the site adjoining his property (the Developer) complied with the conditions of the planning consent.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) has unreasonably delayed to ensure that the Developer complies with the conditions of the planning consent (upheld); and
• (b) has failed to use appropriate (enforcement) action to ensure that the Developer complies with the conditions of the planning consent (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide details of how they are taking matters forward with the Developer (with timeline) now they acknowledge that a breach of condition has occurred;
• (ii) provide a copy of their review of internal communications between Development Management and Environmental Planning Teams;
• (iii) ensure that measures are taken to feedback the learning from this event to all staff (complaint a);
• (iv) ensure that measures are taken to feedback the learning from this event to all staff (complaint b); and
• (v) issue Mr C with a full apology for the failings identified in this complaint.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly, having already met recommendation (v).

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by East Ayrshire Council (the Council) of a planning application for a wind turbine development of 15 turbines near her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not reasonably assess the impact of the development prior to determining the application (upheld);
• (b) did not reasonably obtain and consider independent expert opinion prior to determining the application (upheld);
• (c) did not have a reasonable policy in respect of the handling of major planning applications (upheld); and
• (d) unreasonably reached an agreement with the applicants under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 before addressing the local residents' concerns (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• issue a written apology to Mrs C for:  the failure to adequately assess the impact of the development in relation to cumulative noise; the failure to obtain an independent report in relation to this prior to reaching a decision; and, the failure to provide adequate information in the planning report in relation to whether, in the event of a decision contrary to the recommendation, there was a significant departure from the development plan in the case of a major development application;
• refund the local residents for the cost of the report they commissioned from an acoustic consultant, subject to the production of relevant receipts; and
• take steps to ensure that there is clearer reference to relevant statutory procedures in committee reports on planning applications, particularly in relation to whether or not there is a significant departure from the development plan in the case of a major development application.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) said that Glasgow City Council (the Council) had not adequately investigated her complaint, when she complained that the secondary school her daughter (Miss A) attended had failed to meet Miss A's additional support needs.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not respond adequately to Mrs C's complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• issue a written apology to Mrs C and Miss A for the failings identified in this investigation;
• review the Complaints Handling Procedure (Appendix Two: What is not a complaint) to ensure that complaints about a school failing to meet additional support needs are appropriately signposted to the Additional Support for Learning framework, rather than considered under the Complaints Handling Procedure;
• remind all relevant staff of the alternative dispute resolution avenue available for complaints about schools failing to meet additional support needs;
• remind all relevant staff of the Council's Complaints Handling Procedure on 'what to do when you receive a complaint for investigation', which includes the recommendation to clarify the complaint and the scope of the investigation with the complainant at an early stage;
• review processes and templates for stage two investigations, to ensure that staff are appropriately prompted to consider:  what the issues in dispute are; whether there are disputes about facts; and what evidence is required to resolve these; and
• review processes for capturing and reporting information from complaints, including:  the root cause of the complaint; and possible action to reduce the risk of recurrence  (consideration should be given to these issues regardless of whether a complaint is upheld).

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.