Local Government

Summary

Mr C's child attends a school which is just under two miles from home, along a rural road. They receive school transport during the winter months, but not during the period between the Easter holidays and the October break. Mr C did not believe that the route between home and school was suitable for young children to walk. He raised a complaint with the council, requesting that the route be re-assessed. The route assessment report was still outstanding a year later. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in re-assessing the route and that their complaints handling had been unreasonable.

The council acknowledged that the delays in re-assessing the route were unacceptable and confirmed a number of measures they were taking to improve their service. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and recommended that the council provide a further apology.

In relation to complaints handling, we considered that there had been confusion among staff about implementing their complaints handling procedure alongside the school transport policy. We found that the council failed to comply with timescales or keep Mr C informed at each stage of the process; instead he had to continually chase them up. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted the wide-reaching improvements implemented by the council as a result of the complaint and asked for evidence of these.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the long delay in reassessing the route, and for the poor complaints handling and general level of customer service, including a recognition of the impact of all of this on Mr C. The apology should meet the standard set out in the SPSO’s guidance on apology which can be found at 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

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action about a neighbour's replacement UPVC windows, which were a breach of planning control. He also complained that the council had failed to take action about the amenity of the same property, due to construction works at the property. Mr C was also unhappy with how his complaint was handled. In particular, he did not feel all the information he provided was fully considered by the council before they responded to his complaint.

The council said that the initial concerns raised about the replacement UPVC windows were not submitted through the appropriate enforcement complaint process. Therefore, they were not investigated as a breach of planning control at that time. The council said that they had investigated Mr C's concerns about the condition of the site but did not consider that there was a level of harm to amenity to justify taking formal action. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The planning adviser considered that the council should have investigated the replacement UPVC windows as a breach of planning control, even though it was not raised through their enforcement complaint process. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the amenity of the property, we found that the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate the complaint about the condition of the site and to assess the harm caused to amenity. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Finally, we did not uphold Mr C's concern about the council's complaints handling, as we considered that they had taken reasonable steps to address his concerns.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not investigating the breach of planning control.The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Allegations of a breach of planning control should always be properly recorded and investigated, in line with the relevant planning 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

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with her complaint in line with their procedures and that they failed to address her concerns about the school place allocations policy. The council had responded to and upheld a number of her concerns, agreeing to conduct a review of their policies as a result. However, they had told her that they could not respond to legal concerns under their complaints procedure, nor could they consider complaints that amounted to disagreement with policy. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the council's complaints handling procedure (CHP) was not in line with the SPSO's model CHP for local authorities, which they have an obligation to ensure. This amounted to their CHP stating that disagreement with policy would not be considered through the complaints process, when the model CHP intends that these complaints, and legal complaints, should both be able to be responded to through the process. This had resulted in the council failing to respond appropriately to Mrs C's concerns. Therefore, we upheld both of her complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should ensure that Mrs C's concerns have been fully addressed and that she has received justification for their final position, with reference to the legislation in question.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council's CHP should not contradict the model CHP.

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 about the council's handling of a planning application which proposed the erection of a new house directly opposite his own. Mr C told us that this application should not have been approved as the council's Local Development Plan (LDP) only allowed for one new house to be built in rural hamlets the size of his during every five year plan period, but this was the third application that had been approved in less than 18 months. In response to his objection and complaint, the council had explained that the reason this had occurred was because one LDP had expired at the end of the year, but the new five year LDP could not be approved until a few months into the new year, due to a Scottish Government review. They said that this meant that the interim period had to be considered a second term of the older LDP, with its own allowance for rural expansion.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that the council's interpretation of the legislation was correct and, therefore, their approach was reasonable. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had not taken account of an objection he made regarding the accuracy of the plans. He said that the levels shown on the plans were not consistent with the gradient of the site. On investigation, we found that Mr C had objected about this issue seperately from his original objection, and outwith the timescale for consultation. As such, the council did not accept it as a valid objection. However, they received a similar objection from another party, so this matter was considered during the process. They also treated Mr C's objection as a planning enforcement matter and attended the site to visually compare the levels against the gradient. Having done so, they concluded that the plans were a reasonable representation of the plot. We concluded that the council's actions in this respect had been reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a report of statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the EPA), which he made due to noise coming from a council owned car park adjacent to his home. The council had told him that they did not consider that the nature of the behaviour fell under the remit of the EPA. Mr C was not satisfied with the explanation provided for this and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. They considered that the council's position was unreasonable, confirming that there was a statutory duty to investigate any complaint of statutory nuisance, decide whether a statutory nuisance was occurring and, if it was, serve an abatement notice. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the council have now informally investigated the noise report.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to adopt or explain a reasonable interpretation of the EPA in relation to his reports of noise. 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:

• The council should accept that they must investigate any complaint of statutory nuisance to establish whether a nuisance exists.

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 made a number of complaints to the council in relation to breaches of planning control and anti-social behaviour at a neighbouring holiday let property. Ms C complained that the council's response to both her concerns was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had been slow to respond to a number of breaches of planning control and that their reports were inconsistent in relation to how they assessed planning applications against relevant policies. However, we noted that they had already identified ways to improve their service going forwards, including stopping the use of operational management plans as a planning approval condition. We also found that the council had advised Ms C to contact the police about anti-social behaviour but should have passed these reports to the environmental health department, in line with their planning enforcement charter. Therefore, we upheld both of Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to pass on her complaints about anti-social behaviour to the relevant service in line with their planning enforcement charter. 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:

• It should be clear from planning reports how applications comply with relevant policies.

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 is an adviser to Ms A. Ms A was a looked after child by the council in a foster care placement, which ended with short notice. At the time the council advised Ms A that she should present as homeless in order to secure accommodation.

Ms C complained that the council failed to provide the required support and aftercare to Ms A as a looked after child, and that they wrongly used homelessness legislation in order to secure accommodation for Ms A. Ms C also complained about the council's handling of the complaint. Ms C said that the council failed to provide a response to the complaint within the agreed extended timescale and she also questioned the impartiality of the investigating officer.

We took independent advice from a social worker. While the council acknowledged that they failed to provide consistent support to Ms A, we did not consider that the council adequately acknowledged their failings. We identified that the council missed a number of opportunities to plan proactively for Ms A leaving care, that they wrongly advised Ms A to present as homeless and that they failed to evidence the after-care support they provided. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

With regards to the council's handling of Ms C's complaint, we found that the investigating officer appointed was suitably impartial, and that they took steps to ensure they took into account Ms A's views. However, we recognise they failed to respond within the agreed timescale. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should update the Pathway Plan and provide clear information on what Ms A's eligible needs are and details of how they will provide the advice and assistance they consider necessary to meet those eligible needs.
• The council should apologise for failing to involve Ms A in discussions about her future, for failing to provide the required support and aftercare and for failing to respond to Ms C's complaint within the agreed timescale. The apology should meet the sta

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

• The council should carry out an audit of young people under their care that are due to leave their care placement in the next 12 months. They should ensure that the appropriate assessments and plans are in place to support these young people when they lea
• The council should take the necessary steps to ensure that the principles of involving young people in discussions about their future arrangements are fully established and embedded within the practice of the social work department and consider whether fu
• Proper records should be kept of the advice and support their staff have provided to their clients.

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 is the holder of a blue badge which was issued by a different council. When his blue badge did not arrive, Mr C reported this to the issuing council, who subsequently issued a replacement blue badge and cancelled the original one. The original blue badge eventually arrived and Mr C proceeded to use this, unaware that this was the cancelled badge. The City of Edinburgh Council issued Mr C with two penalty charge notices and impounded his car for displaying a cancelled blue badge. The council also observed on three separate occasions that Mr C displayed a valid blue badge, leading them to conclude that he was in possession of two blue badges. Mr C complained that the council wrongly asserted that he was in possession of two blue badges.

We found that the council's blue badge recording systems were insufficient and did not produce consistent information. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that Mr C was in possession of two blue badges. We consided that the council had failed to thoroughly investigate the complaint and, therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We also noted that the council failed to provide us with all the relevant evidence and made a recommendation in light of this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to thoroughly investigate his complaint and to produce relevant evidence. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines at: https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should respond properly to complaints, taking into account all relevant evidence and should provide all the information relevant to a complaint when responding to enquiries from the SPSO.

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 to the council, on behalf of his sister (Ms A), about the company that the council contracted to provide her care. Mr C said that they inappropriately charged her for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for staff, that they had failed to evidence that Ms A received a warm home discount each year and had unreasonably failed to calculate and refund costs associated with the use of Ms A's phone by staff. Mr C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his enquiries. The council confirmed that a refund was being looked into regarding the PPE and that a refund had been issued for one year of phone bills, with five years in total to be assessed. This remained unresolved and Mr C brought his complaint to us.

The council advised a different care provider was contracted for the first two years of care. They did not have evidence of the phone bills or PPE for that period as the company in question has since ceased to exist. The council have since provided Ms A with a refund for three years for the PPE. They provided three years of phone bills but did not offer to issue a further refund in this regard. We considered that the council unreasonably failed to calculate and refund costs for the PPE and use of Ms A's phone by staff. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint and asked the council to examine the full five years in question.

In relation to the warm home discount, the council were able to evidence that Ms A had correctly received this. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Finally, we considered that the council had failed to provide a reasonable response to Mr C's enquiries. We noted that the company providing care to Ms A delayed in their response to the council but considered that the delay in responding to his enquiries was unacceptable. 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 process the appropriate refunds for PPE and phone bills to Ms A; for failing to provide him with information in relation to this; and for the unacceptable delay in responding to his enquiries and complaints. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The organisation should calculate the PPE and phone bill refunds for five years, evidence this, and refund Ms A accordingly. If information is not available, the council should explain how any estimate has been determined.

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

• Evidence that there is a clear process in place when the council is seeking evidence from a contracted company to prevent future delays of this nature.

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

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take action to address anti-social behaviour at a derelict yard they own, which backs on to her parents' house. She complained that large groups of youths were gathering at night, playing loud music and misusing drugs and alcohol. One of the buildings had been set on fire several times, causing concern because of its proximity to her parents' property.

Mrs C's father (Mr A) had contacted the council on a number of occasions, asking them to take steps to address the problem. After several months without any satisfactory resolution Mrs C complained to the council on her father's behalf, and when she remained dissatisfied with their response she brought her complaint to SPSO.

We found that, until Mrs C complained to them, the council did very little to address the concerns raised by Mr A. They also failed to keep Mr A informed about what action they were taking. We noted that they had taken steps to secure the site, in line with their obligations as landlord, but these steps did little or nothing to prevent access. The council had now taken steps to have buildings on the site demolished and cleared, and although we considered this a positive step, we thought this could have been undertaken much sooner. We upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for not taking action to address their concerns at an earlier stage. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mrs C and her father for the shortcomings in their communication. The apology should meet the standards set out inthe SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Keep Mrs C updated regarding the progress of plans for demolition at the site.

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

• Staff should be confident about handling complaints of this nature and understand the measures available to them to address such concerns.
• Where an investigation involves communication across different departments, staff should diarise ahead to check for responses to ensure that matters do not get overlooked.

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.