Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of roads consent on the housing estate he lived in. He told us that the roads were still not fully complete, despite the three year roads consent period having expired a number of years ago.

Under roads consent legislation, roads authorities (in this case the council) are supposed to secure a bond or deposit from any developer seeking to construct a road when issuing consent. The developer then has a three year period to complete the road before the consent expires. Come the expiry date, councils are either supposed to formally extend the consent or, if the consent expires, use the security bond or deposit to complete the works.

In response to our enquiries, the council confirmed that the works in question were now complete, but accepted a number of failings in this case. They explained that they had not ensured that security bonds or deposits were received for all the roads in the estate before issuing consent. While they took steps to pursue the developer for the missing bonds, by the time they sought to take formal action in this respect, some houses were completed and occupied. This meant that they were unable to close or divert the roads, which would be their normal recourse in this situation. They also failed to ensure that the consent was formally extended. Normally this would have meant that they would be responsible for completing the works. However, this was complicated by the failure to secure the necessary bonds or deposits and also by a planning condition, which specified that the permanent road surface was not to be completed until all building works were complete. This only took place within the last few months, at which point the council took steps to ensure the roads were completed as soon as practicable.

The council explained that they had implemented a number of procedural changes to ensure that similar mistakes were not repeated in future. This included:

ensuring that security bonds are received from developers before house building commences

ensuring that roads are stopped up before occupation if necessary

implementing regular expiration date checks to ensure consent does not lapse unnecessarily.

We were satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to Mr C's complaint and he agreed. We did not take our investigation any further.

Summary

Ms C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Mrs B) about the decision made by Mrs B's daughter (Miss A)'s school to exclude Miss A from attending an overseas trip. Miss A has a condition which is a disability under the Equalities Act 2010. The school understood Miss A's health to be particularly poor and had concerns about safely managing her condition during the trip. The school carried out an additional risk assessment and sought advice from the council, who advised that a parent or guardian should accompany Miss A, otherwise she should be excluded for safety reasons. Ultimately, a parent or guardian could not attend, and Miss A did not go on the trip. Ms C complained that the school failed to take all relevant information into account when they decided to remove Miss A from the trip. Ms C also raised concerns about how the school communicated the decision to exclude Miss A to Mrs B and Miss A.

We found that, due to their concerns about her health, it was reasonable that the school carried out an additional risk assessment about Miss A's attendance on the trip. However, we found that the school should have given Mrs B a timescale to provide medical documents, which they did not. We also found that, during the decision making process, the school should have discussed Miss A's health and the support she may need during the trip with her. We also considered that the decision to remove Miss A from the trip should have been communicated to her directly by the school, and it was not. We therefore upheld these two aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council did not take their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 into account in their handling of the matter. We took independent advice from an equalities adviser. The adviser considered that the school had made a reasonable adjustment by organising medical training for staff attending the trip. However, we found that this should have been organised at an earlier stage in planning the trip. The equalities adviser also considered that the council should have advised the school about their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 and their need to make reasonable adjustments. We found that the council did not advise the school of this. In addition, the equalities adviser said that the council's advice should have been tailored specifically to Miss A and her condition, which it was not. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs B and Miss A for:
• failing to obtain all relevant information in deciding whether to remove Miss A from the trip
• the shortcomings in how the decision was communicated to Miss A
• not taking their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 into account.
• 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:

• Young people should be allowed an opportunity to express their opinions and contribute in the decision making process for decisions which affect them.
• Staff training about managing pupil's health conditions should take place as early as is practical in organising a trip.
• The council's excursion policy should refer to the Equalities Act 2010 and give guidance on making reasonable adjustments to avoid discriminating against pupils with a disability.
• Council staff should be aware of their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 and the need to make reasonable adjustments for pupils with a disability.
• Decisions about reasonable adjustments should be tailored to the individual concerned and how their condition specifically affects them.

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 that they did not adequately respond to the repairs at his property relating to dampness and a faulty boiler. He also complained that the council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and failed to take into account his mental health when determining that he was intentionally homeless.

In their response to Mr C the council summarised the works carried out to the property. They said that the issues reported with regards to the boiler were resolved and that there was no issues with respect to dampness which would have made the property uninhabitable or would have caused the health problems Mr C had reported. With respect to the homelessness application, they reiterated the process that they had followed. Mr C was not happy with the response and brought his complaint to us.

We found that the council had adequately responded to reported faults at the property. Boiler works were carried out in accordance with their policy and, whilst there was a delay in providing a full reinstatement to flooring in the bathroom following an identified leak, this was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not cause the property to be uninhabitable.

With respect to the homelessness application, we were satisfied that the council properly assessed Mr C's circumstances, communicated with him effectively throughout the process, provided him with accommodation throughout and clarified points he raised at a review meeting. It was clear that the council obtained relevant information, particularly with respect to Mr C's health and mental health, and made their decision in accordance with appropriate policies and guidance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for external alterations to a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. The proposal was to increase the height of the roof of an existing utility building and associated works to create additional living space. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission subject to conditions. The first of these was that the development had to be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings.

Mr C was concerned that the council's decision had been procedurally flawed and based on inaccurate information. He complained to the council about this. At both stages of the council's complaints procedure the responses stated their conclusions that the decision had been taken properly and on the basis of accurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with these responses and raised his complaints with us.

We upheld Mr C's complaints that statements in the report were inaccurate (specifically statements that the pitch of the roof 'will match' the main house and that the rooflights will be 'invisible from a public area'); that the approved drawings associated with the application did not contain sufficient written dimensions to ensure that the precise location and scale of what was being proposed was clear; and that the council did not respond reasonably to some of Mr C's complaints. We did not uphold complaints that the evaluation of the application against relevant guidance was unreasonable or that the inadequacies of the report of handling meant that the decision on the application was unreasonable.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to some of his complaints about the handling of the application.
• Provide Mr C with a direct response to his complaint.
• Amend the approved drawings for the application to ensure the precise location and scale of what was being proposed, and has been approved, is clear.

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

• Relevant council staff should be reminded that statements of fact in reports of handling should be accurate.
• Relevant council staff should be reminded that approved drawings should be adequately dimensioned to ensure the precise location and scale of what is being proposed is clear.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Relevant council staff should be reminded that issues raised in complaints should be directly responded to.

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 and Mrs C complained on behalf of two of their children (Master A and Miss A), who have additional support needs. They complained that the council failed to provide the children with adequate educational support, that they had failed to follow their anti-bullying policy in relation to Master A, and that their investigation of the complaint was unreasonable. They also complained that the head teacher of the children's school had made an inappropriate referral to the social work department.

In response to our enquiry the council provided us with the children's pastoral care notes, the children's wellbeing assessments and plans, and the relevant council policies. We found that the council mostly appeared to have followed their policies when providing the children with educational support but we noted that neither Mr and Mrs C, nor the children, had been consulted in relation to the children's wellbeing assessments and plans, which is in line with council policies. However, we did not consider that this was in itself enough to uphold the complaints.

In relation to the complaint about bullying, it was clear that there was a difference in opinion between the council and Mr and Mrs C. Mr and Mrs C considered that Master A had experienced a number of incidences of bullying, but the council disagreed and had therefore not recorded the events as bullying. In relation to one incident involving another child that had been recorded, we considered that the council had dealt with the matter appropriately and in line with their anti-bullying policy.

We were critical of the way in which the council had investigated this complaint. Mrs C had to chase a response and the council's initial response to her was very brief. We considered that the investigation could have been carried out more clearly and transparently.

In relation to the social work referral we found that contact had been made in an informal way with a view to supporting the family, and we therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for failing to consult with Mr and Mrs C, or Master A, in relation to Master A's wellbeing assessment and plan.
• Apologise for failing to consult with Mr and Mrs C, or Miss A, in relation to Miss A's wellbeing assessment and plan.
• Apologise for the failings in the complaint investigation. All apologies should comply with SPSO guidance on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be confident in identifying and escalating complaints, and should provide details of their investigations when responding 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 and Mrs C raised a number of complaints about the council regarding various housing repairs. They complained that the council did not issue an invoice for a repair that was carried out until 18 months later and they felt that this delay was unreasonable. They also complained that the council unreasonably required them to provide receipts as proof of purchase when they were trying to submit an insurance claim for damage caused to their property. They did not think it was reasonable to expect tenants to retain receipts for items that were purchased a number of years ago. They also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in completing a communal repair to the chimney at their property.

The council acknowledged that they delayed in issuing the invoice for the repair and they agreed to cancel it. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The council confirmed that they will accept forms of evidence other than receipts when considering an insurance claim. We found that the letter provided with the insurance form does not provide clear information in this regard. We upheld this part of the complaint.

The council explained that the repair to the chimney was categorised as a non-emergency repair and that it therefore had no timescale attached to it. The council confirmed that, at the time of our investigation, the repair order had been sent to the contractor and that they would expect the repair to be completed soon. We found the council's actions to be reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for unreasonably delaying in sending them an invoice for a repair. Also apologise for failing to provide clear information on how to submit an insurance claim.

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

• The information provided by the council with insurance claim forms should be reviewed to ensure that customers are aware that other forms of evidence may be accepted if receipts are not available.

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 planning consent for an extension to a house on a neighbouring site. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to carry out a reasonable assessment of the impact on his privacy.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council, as planning authority, had processed the planning application in accordance with the correct policy and procedure, and that a reasonable assessment of the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties was carried out. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mr C considered that the works carried out at his home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled his complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mr C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold his complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and that there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mr C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these.

We also found that Mr C's complaint had been handled in line with the council's complaints handling procedure. Consequently, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mrs C considered that the works carried out at her home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled her complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mrs C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold her complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mrs C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these. However, we found that in responding to Mrs C's official complaint, the council failed to respond within the 20 working days specified in their complaints handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to respond to her concerns or give an appropriate update within the timescales laid out in their complaints handling procedure. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure. Any revised timescale should be agreed with the complainant or approved by senior staff in line with the policy and the reasons for this explained to the complainant.

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 had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out on her home by a third party company. Mrs C considered that the works carried out at her home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled her complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mrs C's concerns about oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold her complaint about this. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and that there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mrs C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these.

We did, however, uphold Mrs C's complaint about the way the council had handled her complaint. We found that the council accepted that Mrs C's initial complaint had not been dealt with appropriately in terms of their complaints handling procedure. We also found that Mrs C had not received a response to her complaint within the prescribed timescales and that, while she had been contacted about the delay, a revised timescale was not offered. This was not in line with the council's complaints handling procedure. We made recommendations to address these issues.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the failings in complaints handling. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure. Any revised timescale should be agreed with the complainant or approved by senior staff in line with the policy and the reasons for this explained to the complainant.

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.