Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the delay by the council in processing a retrospective planning application for a wind turbine that was built near his home. Planning permission was granted to build three wind turbines near Mr C's home. The third and final of these wind turbines was built approximately two years after the first two but was larger than the others. Mr C raised concerns about this with the council and was unhappy with their response, namely not to take enforcement action and to allow the owner of the turbine to make a retrospective application for planning permission. Mr C was unhappy about the lack of action by the council to remedy this situation.

The council explained that delays in the planning application occurred due to a combination of factors including staffing issues and delays in completing a noise survey. The completion of noise surveys was delayed for a number of reasons including inclement weather and the turbines requiring repairs. The decision was eventually taken to present the owner with the option to have the application determined and refused on the information available, or that they could withdraw the application and re-submit it in three months when the noise surveys could be correctly carried out. The owner withdrew the application and when the new application and noise surveys were not submitted as anticipated, the council began enforcement action. The owner complied with the enforcement action and arranged to have the turbine taken down. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and the delays in this case and brought his complaint to us. We noted that when the council became aware of the planning breach, they responded within the appropriate timescale and requested further information from the owner's agent. However, there was then a delay of several months with no explanation before the decision was made that a retrospective planning application was required.

We took the view that deadlines should have been imposed on the owner much sooner than they were, with the council being overly generous in the time that was allowed to the owner to comply with their requests. The council could also have taken the decision to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficient information (or offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application) much sooner than they did. This would have allowed for alternative enforcement action to begin.

We found that the application was live for an excessive period of time and that there were frequent delays in action being taken. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, the council advised that they had taken steps to stop this from happening again in the future, including introducing regular reviews of staff caseloads. We were satisfied with this and asked that the council provide us with evidence of this. We did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's father (Mr A) had been receiving a care package from the council's Extended Community Care Team (ECCT) when an assessment resulted in his recognised care needs changing. Mr C attempted to source a new suitable care package but struggled to do this and asked the council to assist him. Mr C rejected the care package the council offered. A few days later, he was offered the same care package and refused it again. Mr C was then also told that the ECCT package would have to be reduced and, the following day, that it would be removed altogether.

Mr C complained to the council that they had used the reduction and withdrawal of the ECCT package to force him to accept the care package he had previously rejected. The council stated that the EECT package was only to be used for a limited period of time and indicated that Mr C had been advised of this reduction and withdrawal prior to refusing the other care package. However, the council recognised that this information had not been made clear to Mr C at the outset and took action to prevent this happening again in the future. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us.

We found no evidence that the council had attempted to force Mr C to accept the care package. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably invoked their unacceptable actions policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that their contact with the council had been restricted in this way.

The council are entitled to apply their UAP in the appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision. Rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council's letters to Mr and Mrs C had highlighted the behaviour that was causing the council concern, enclosed copies of their UAP and told Mr and Mrs C that their contact may be restricted if that behaviour did not change. As Mr and Mrs C's behaviour continued unchanged, the council subsequently wrote to them confirming that their contact was being restricted. The council explained that they would review their decision in three months, although Mr and Mrs C could also ask them to review the decision.

The evidence indicated that Mr and Mrs C were given a chance to modify their behaviour before the council invoked their UAP. It also indicated that, once the decision to restrict their contact was made, the council's letters contained the relevant information detailed in the UAP. On that basis, we concluded that the council had made a decision they were entitled to have made and that there was no evidence of maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council after her child (child A) returned from a school trip abroad badly sunburned, requiring a hospital stay. She complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that her child would not get sunburned, that reasonable action was not taken when the severity of child A's condition was established, and that her complaint had been handled unreasonably.

We found that a full risk assessment had been carried out and that pupils were reminded several times a day to administer sun protection. We considered that the council's actions aimed at preventing pupils from getting sunburned were reasonable, even though they were not effective in preventing child A from becoming sunburned. We were critical of a decision to allow the child to wear shorts and no sun protection when their legs were uncomfortable. The council said child A was only exposed to 30 minutes of sunlight on that occasion. With hindsight, we considered this to have been a poor decision, but we noted that sunburn was not yet suspected at that point and the main concern was the child's comfort. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We found failings in the council's actions once the severity of the child's condition was known. Staff initially took advice from a pharmacist then later took the child to a local hospital. They took the advice of doctors at the hospital and also kept Mrs C and her husband informed until the group returned to the UK. We considered these steps to have been reasonable. However, the child was bandaged from thigh to toe and was unable to mobilise independently and in need of a wheelchair. The return journey home was 36 hours by coach. We considered that staff, who could see the condition child A was in, ought to have explored with Mrs C and her husband other options for getting child A home more quickly, taking into account the child's dignity, privacy and comfort. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We were critical of the council's complaints handling. We found that they failed to treat Mrs C's complaint as a formal complaint, and failed to advise her of the their complaints process. We also considered that their response to her was lacking in empathy. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the poor handling of her complaint. 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, her husband and child A for failing to explore other options for child A to travel home once the severity of their condition was established.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The relevant staff should be reminded of the council's complaints handling procedure and re-familiarise themselves with how to apply it.
• Staff should be aware of the importance of providing an empathetic response to complaints.

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 way the council handled complaints he had made.

Firstly, Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to investigate his complaints about a member of staff regarding the treatment of his son at school and the way this had been investigated. We identified that the council had already undertaken a number of investigations in relation to matters concerning Mr C's son's treatment at school and the way in which subsequent investigations were dealt with. This had included some investigation of the member of staff Mr C had specific concerns about. We considered the council's refusal to investigate Mr C's complaints further to be reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that, when the council contacted him to tell him that they would not be investigating his complaints, they said that they had 'comprehensively' scrutinised his complaints about his son's treatment at school, and the subsequent investigations. Mr C complained that this unreasonably implied that his complaints about the staff member had already been comprehensively scrutinised, and that this was not the case. We considered that the council were referring to matters more broadly, noting that the matters that they said had been comprehensively scrutinised encompassed some of Mr C's concerns about the member of staff. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Lastly, Mr C complained that what he considered to be the false implication above had been broadcast by the council to a number of parties in response to an email from him which he had copied to a distribution list. Given that we had not upheld the second complaint above, and had not found that what the council had said was unreasonable, it followed that we also did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of herself and other residents in the apartment complex where she lives. The council had decided that Ms C, and other owners of the property, were liable for emergency and statutory repairs to a drainage system. Over the course of a number of months several emergency and statutory notices were served in relation to this. Ms C complained to the council about the various actions related to the serving of the notices. The council were of the view that they had acted appropriately and had reached decisions reasonably. Ms C remained unhappy and brought her complaints to us.

Ms C complained about the process by which the council reached decisions on whether repairs were emergency repairs and which property owners were liable for the costs of the works. We considered the administrative aspects of these matters and concluded that the council had acted reasonably in this regard. We did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained about the administration of the notices and other correspondence to the property owners. We found that there were no significant failings in the council's actions related to this. We did note that there was a delay at one point in the council issuing an emergency repair notice to property owners, that owners had received invoices at one point which the council believed had been cancelled before they had been sent out, and that the council had incorrectly stated that a letter and report were hand delivered to each liable property. However, given the overall context and the volume of correspondence that the council had to deal with regarding these notices, we did not consider that these failings were significant enough to warrant upholding the complaint. As such, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint, but we did make some recommendations.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to residents via the Proprietor's Committee that an emergency repair notice was not issued within a reasonable timescale, and that their statement that a letter and report were hand delivered to each liable property was incorrect. 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:

• Investigate how invoices that were believed to have been cancelled were received by owners, and take steps to avoid a similar situation recurring.
• Investigate whether an emergency repair notice could have been issued earlier and, if so, take steps to avoid a similar situation recurring.

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.