Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C own a hotel in a conservation area. They applied to the council for a grant to replace the windows on the front of the hotel, and were awarded the full grant. They required planning permission to replace the windows, but had problems getting through the registration process. Mr and Mrs C felt that the information they were submitting was adequate, and felt frustrated with what they considered to be the council's lack of clarity regarding the information required. In the meantime, the hotel building was deteriorating, which had an impact on their business and the health and safety of their family who were living there. The council's position was that Mr and Mrs C had continually submitted inadequate planning applications which were invalid. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's handling of their planning application was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not find any reasonable basis to question or challenge the council's reasoning and conclusions. We were satisfied that the council replied promptly, constructively and appropriately at all times. We considered that the council had made it clear what supporting documentation was required, and what essential items were missing, for the planning applications to be deemed valid for processing and determination. We found that the council were not in breach of any procedures or legislation, and did not cause any delays in the handling of the applications. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A), who required personal care in her home, that the council had unreasonably charged Mrs A for personal care. Following discussions with us, the council accepted that personal care for individuals over the age of 65 years was a non-chargeable service and they should not have charged Mrs A for providing her with this service. They agreed to reimburse the full free personal care contribution claimed by Mrs A. The council also apologised for the time it had taken to resolve this matter and said that a change to their charging policy would now be applied to other persons who were subject to financial assessment for non-chargeable personal care before the charging policy was revised. As this was a satisfactory outcome for Mr C, we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of an elderly relative (Mrs A) that the council unreasonably charged her for a replacement front door after she left her council tenancy, and about the council's response to his complaint.

Mrs A changed the front door for one of her own preference several years ago. Upon leaving the tenancy, the council did a premises check. A year after leaving the tenancy, Mrs A was sent an invoice for a replacement front door stating that the door was damaged. Mr C queried this on Mrs A's behalf, stating that this was the first time they had been informed of any damage. Mrs A received a final demand for payment from a debt recovery agency working at the council's request.

We found that the council had no evidence of the inspection carried out before Mrs A left her tenancy, to show that they noticed and recorded the door as needing replaced, and informed Mrs A of this. Since Mrs A was a council tenant for over 30 years, and because of her age and state of health, the responsibility should have been on the council to remind Mrs A, at the time of the inspection, of her obligation to replace the door. There was no evidence that the council did this, or that they gave Mrs A the chance to replace the door before they charged her. The council could also have used their discretion not to charge Mrs A for the door, given her age and health. The council did not properly explain their discretion to Mr C, and gave him and us contradictory and conflicting information about it. The council said that they considered their discretion in Mrs A's case, but provided no evidence of this. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that a council officer did not make notes of phone calls with Mr C, and was unable to recall what was said when we asked. It was not clear which process the council used to deal with Mr C's complaint. In addition, we found that the council did not respond to key points of Mr C's complaint, and did not respond at all to his final email. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Cancel the invoice to Mrs A for the door and instruct the debt recovery agency to take no further action.
• Apologise to Mrs A for unreasonably charging her for a replacement front door. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable handling of 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.
• Acknowledge that they had the power/discretion to consider waiving the charge.

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

• Housing staff should make a note of phone calls querying invoices, and retain evidence that they told the caller to contact the repair team with details of the dispute, so that the issues can be investigated.
• Housing staff should make a record of their consideration of such cases, including requests for discretion to be applied, and the rationale for the conclusion(s) reached.
• Housing staff should advise tenants, or their representatives, how to ask for the application of discretion for elderly and infirm people, advise what evidence is needed to support any such claim, and explain how their request will be considered.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Housing staff should advise tenants, or their representatives, under which procedure their dissatisfaction is being handled.
• Housing staff should respond to all key points of a complaint.
• Housing staff should not ignore emails, but should provide an appropriate response.

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 to the council as her bins were not being collected as required. Ms C was part of an assisted take out service due to her ill health but her bins were not always being lifted or, when they were, they were not returned to the correct place. Ms C made numerous complaints about this but believed that the situation noticeably worsened when she witnessed her neighbour speaking with a member of staff who, following the conversation, did not empty Ms C's bin. She was of the view that her neighbour was influencing staff not to empty her bins as part of a long running dispute. The council's response was to advise Ms C that she needed to leave her bins within the boundary of her property, and not place them on the shared driveway, as this was confusing for staff. Ms C remained unhappy with the council's position and brought her complaint to us.

Ms C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable bin collection service and that their response to her complaint was unreasonable. We investigated information provided by both parties and advised Ms C we would not be investigating her neighbour's involvement as records from the council showed that Ms C had been experiencing this problem long before the incident with her neighbour. The records from the council showed a clear pattern of repeated failings. We upheld Ms C's complaint and asked the council to apologise to her for continually failing to empty her bins. We also noted the council had introduced a number of new processes to increase accountability for staff and they hoped this would see an improvement in service provision. We asked the council to evidence the impact of the changes they had made.

Regarding the council's response to Ms C's complaint, we found that the response was inadequate as it appeared to suggest Ms C was to blame for her bins not being emptied. We also found that the changes that the council told us they had implemented to improve the service were not referred to in their complaints response. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for repeated failings when collecting her bins and for the poor content of the response to her complaint.

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

Miss C complained about the council's response to her reports of anti-social behaviour by her upstairs neighbour. The complaints largely concerned the noise caused by her neighbour's children and rubbish being left in communal areas. She did not consider the council's response or the actions they carried out to be adequate. The council carried out a number of actions to try to manage Miss C's neigbour’s behaviour and mitigate any noise transference between properties. However, Miss C did not consider these actions to go far enough and ended up moving home.

After reviewing the council's records and their anti-social behaviour policy, we concluded that the actions taken were reasonable and appropriate. We acknowledged the fact that some of the actions taken were not successful but emphasised that this, in itself, is not an indication of maladministration or service failure. We also considered that the council kept Miss C involved, responded appropriately to her concerns and provided explanations for why they were not considering other approaches. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council as they were unhappy with the way their child (child A) was dealt with when they suffered a head injury at their primary school. The head injury occurred when child A fell during playtime. Following the injury they were confused, distressed, and were suffering from loss of memory. Mr and Mrs C felt that an ambulance should have been called immediately. Instead, the school observed child A for a short time, before calling Mr and Mrs C and asking them to pick child A up and take them to the GP. This meant that there was a period of around 45 minutes from the injury occurring to them attending to pick up their child. Mr and Mrs C complained that the relevant council procedure was not appropriately followed when the school were dealing with child A's head injury. Mr and Mrs C were also dissatisfied with the standard of the council's complaints handling.

The council provided us with a copy of their Accidents to Pupils procedure, which instructed staff on when emergency medical assistance should be sought for head injuries, as well as providing more general guidance about how injured children should be transported to hospital if medical treatment not needing an ambulance was required. The procedure said that an ambulance should be called immediately where: the child was unconscious for any length of time; the child was vomiting frequently; neck pain was associated with the injury; or where the child's condition was 'giving cause for concern'. It appeared clear from the council's records that staff were concerned by child A's condition. This is why staff requested the child was collected and taken to their GP. However, the procedure required that they should have called an ambulance or, if they did not consider their condition serious enough to warrant emergency transport, they should have arranged for them to be transported directly to hospital by taxi or a member of staff's personal vehicle. Instead, they attempted to call Mr and Mrs C, resulting in the delay of around 45 minutes before they could collect their child and seek medical attention for them. We upheld the first complaint.

Further to this, we did not consider that the council's Accidents to Pupils procedure was sufficiently detailed for use by non-medical staff. We took independent advice from a GP adviser and we were advised that child A's condition should have been a cause for concern. The adviser's recommendation would have been that an ambulance was called. However, it is not reasonable to expect school staff to have detailed knowledge of complex medical issues, which is why it is important that the council's procedures are robust and give clear guidance that is easily understood. The adviser suggested that the school should liaise with NHS 24 to review the Accidents to Pupils procedure to ensure that it is both manageable for their staff and clinically sound.

We considered that the council's complaints handling had been unreasonable. In particular, we felt that a reasonable investigation should have highlighted that the school's failure to arrange direct transport to hospital was in clear contravention of the Accidents to Pupils procedure. As such, we also upheld the second complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to follow the Accidents to Pupils procedure, for the delay this caused in child A receiving medical attention and for failing to identify this as part of their complaints investigation. 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:

• The council should liaise with NHS 24 to review the Accidents to Pupils procedure.
• All relevant staff should be aware of the Accidents to Pupils procedure and ensure it is followed when a pupil is injured.

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 delayed telling her about an incident involving her child (child A) and their teacher. The incident occurred just prior to the start of the summer holidays and Mrs C was not notified until after the start of the new school year in the autumn. Mrs C felt this was unreasonable because her child's communication needs meant that they could not simply tell her what had happened and, as a result, she was unaware of the incident for around ten weeks.

The council did not feel that there had been an unreasonable delay in informing Mrs C. They said their decisions were risk assessed carefully, communicated appropriately and took account of the wellbeing and rights of employees. The council felt that the school had acted appropriately and in line with their confidential reporting and disciplinary procedures. They also explained that, as the summer holidays would prevent direct contact between child A and the teacher for seven weeks, there was no risk directly linked to the incident at that time.

Our role was to consider the council's administrative handling of the matter. Our review of their procedures found that the council's internal documents about reporting, investigating and dealing with such incidents did not detail the process for notifying parents of a possible incident. Although we recognised the balancing act the council had in the circumstances, we also recognised that Mrs C, as a parent, wanted to know about this incident promptly. While the evidence indicated that the council had followed their confidential reporting and disciplinary procedures, we felt the fact that the lack of any mention of notifying parents within those documents was a shortcoming. On that basis we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

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

• Procedures should highlight the importance of giving consideration to informing parents of allegations that may affect their children. The council should also document the reasons for their decision.

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 process. Mr C said that the owner of the site in question is now using the site for a purpose that was not part of their original planning application. Mr C said that a change of use planning application should have been made, and that the permission granted does not cover the activities currently being carried out at the site. In addition to this, Mr C felt that a transport assessment should have been carried out, due to the size of the site.

We reviewed the relevant information and took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that there was no requirement that the council explicitly state that a change of use had been applied for. We also concluded that the council had considered the original application as a change of use application, and that the subsequent approval permits the activities currently being carried out at the site. In respect of the transport assessment, we were satisfied that the guidance states that the size criteria is indicative, and not an automatic trigger for an assessment to be carried out. Although we found that the council's report of handling could have been more detailed on this matter, we considered the council's subsequent explanations for why they did not carry out a transport assessment to be acceptable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with complaints she had made about her child's school in line with their obligations. She said that the council had not investigated her concerns correctly, that they had responded to her complaint outwith the timescale of 20 working days and that they had not implemented any changes as a result of failings they had identified.

We found that the council had delayed in commencing their investigations and that, whilst it was reasonable that the investigations took more than 20 working days, it was unreasonable that the council failed to keep Mrs C updated on their progress or seek to agree reasonable timeframes by which they would provide their response. In addition, the council's complaints response was overly complex, hard to understand and failed to clearly state the elements of the complaint they had upheld, and what actions were identified to address the failings. We also considered that the council had failed to provide clear explanations of the actions they had taken with respect to certain failings identified. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide an apology for failing to comply with their complaints handling procedure. This apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Provide Mrs C with additional detail and appropriate explanations in relation to how they plan to appropriately address certain failings that were identified by their investigation.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All relevant members of staff should review the Complaints Handling Procedure and confirm they understand it.
• Letters confirming delay in investigations should include an appropriate explanation of the reason for delay and seek to confirm a reasonable timeframe for the provision of the response.

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 concerns about the council's handling of a Section 75 Agreement contained in a planning approval for a residential agreement. A Section 75 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables land owners to enter into a legal agreement with the planning authority to restrict or regulate the development or use of land. In this case, the Section 75 Agreement related to a replacement football pitch. Mr C complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action in respect of the planning approval in relation to the condition of the replacement football pitch.

We took independent planning advice. The advice we received was that the council had failed to give adequate consideration to the policy provisions of the National Planning Policy Guideline 11: Sports, Physical Recreation and Open Space (NPPG 11), which was in place at the time of the application. The relevant guidance is now the Scottish Planning Policy 2014. We found that the council, as planning authority, had no capacity to take enforcement action in this case, as what had been built met the terms of the Section 75 Agreement. However, we found that the council had unreasonably failed to make provision through the Section 75 Agreement that a specification for the replacement pitch be agreed in writing before construction began to ensure that the replacement pitch met the full terms of the NPPG 11. As such, the replacement pitch was not suitable in terms of accessibility, amenity and community benefit. While we identified shortcomings in the handling of the planning application in relation to the report of handling, consultation and the adequacy of the Section 75 Agreement, given that the council had no capacity to take enforcement action we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about enforcement action.

Mr C also raised concerns about the handling of his complaint. We found that the council's handling of his complaint was reasonable, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to give full regard to the terms of the NPPG11, which has led to the construction of a football pitch which is not of a serviceable standard. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Current practice should ensure that planning applications take explicit account of the requirements of the Scottish Planning Policy in terms of replacement playing fields and sports pitches.

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.