Local Government

Summary

Miss C complained about the way the council dealt with her complaint to them. She was also was unhappy that the council had issued warnings following an investigation into allegations of anti-social behaviour.

We were satisfied that the council demonstrated that a fair and balanced investigation into complaints of anti-social behaviour had taken place and that their discretionary decision to issue warnings was in line with their procedures.

We were also satisfied that the council could demonstrate that a full investigation of Miss C's subsequent complaint had taken place and that their letter explaining their decision was reasonable. As a result of our findings, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of assessments of his business following the imposition of a remedial action notice under the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006. He also complained that the council incorrectly registered his business and failed to correct this within a reasonable time-frame.

The council inspected Mr C's business and served a remedial action notice. Mr C said he sought to comply with the notice, but that the council continuously changed what was being required from him. He also said that the council failed to take into account the expert views of a food hygiene consultant who was assisting him to comply with the notice. Finally, Mr C said it had emerged that the council had not managed his earlier application for registration correctly.

After reviewing submissions from the council and Mr C we found that the council had relied on the professional judgement of their officers in assessing compliance with the remedial action notice. We found that there was extensive correspondence between the council, Mr C, and his consultant. In this correspondence we saw evidence that the council had taken into account opposing views, and had sought to explain their position. There was no requirement for the council's officers to reach the same view as Mr C's consultant. While Mr C had said that the council had shifted what was being required, we found that the correspondence suggested that the council were seeking to explain what evidence they needed to be satisfied that compliance had occurred, and not that they were changing what they were asking for. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to assess his business reasonably following the imposition of the remedial action notice.

Regarding Mr C's complaint about the incorrect registration of his business, the council acknowledged that there had been problems in the handling of applications. They explained that they had not requested the appropriate form from Mr C at the time he made his application for registration. They said that they had apologised to Mr C and had taken action to improve their management of the files. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, as the council had apologised to Mr C and taken action to address this issue, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about a planning application for a residential development of houses close to his own. He was concerned about the way the council considered, and then approved, the application. Mr C said that insufficient information was made available to allow the public to make informed objections and that his privacy had been overlooked to the benefit of the developer. Mr C also said that the council did not give proper consideration to their existing policies. During the build, the developer constructed a site office without the benefit of planning permission, and they advertised properties for sale. Mr C brought this to the council's attention but said that they failed to take appropriate action and did not require the developer to stop works. Mr C said that council officers allowed the developer to make a retrospective planning application for the site office, which Mr C felt was to his disadvantage. Mr C also complained about the way the council dealt with his subsequent complaints.

The council took the view that they had provided sufficient information about the planning application for the residential development and that, in deciding it, had taken into account Mr C's objections. The council said that they had noted and looked into Mr C's concerns about the site office. They had contacted the developer about a number of issues and made a site visit. Following this, it was decided that a retrospective planning application was to be submitted and Mr C would be kept updated. It was also agreed that council officers would continue to monitor the site office. Mr C remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We took independent planning advice and we found that, in accordance with relevant guidance, the council had provided sufficient information for the application for the residential development to be considered reasonably and appropriately. We found that, after Mr C had reported concerns about the unauthorised building of the site office and the use of this site to advertise properties for sale, the council had looked into the matter to ensure that an appropriate planning application was submitted. They did not take enforcement action, but the decision whether or not to do so was a matter for their professional judgement. We considered the council's handling of Mr C's complaints to have been reasonable overall. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Planning permission was sought for development of an area bordering Mr C's property. Mr C felt that the council's report of handling for this application should have made reference to a section 75 agreement (a contract that is entered into between a landowner and a planning authority) that had been reached in relation to another application that had previously been submitted for a separate, nearby area. Mr C felt that the section 75 agreement relating to the other application should have been mentioned in the report of handling for the new application for planning permission as the two applications were similar. Mr C also felt that the council's report of handling did not accurately detail the requirements of the council's policy regarding the collection of domestic waste. Mr C also raised concerns that the council's responses to his enquiries and complaints had not been reasonable. Mr C felt that the council's responses were not provided within a reasonable timescale, relied upon events that had not occurred at the time of the consideration of the application and had contained an error that was retracted when he had queried it.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser and found that it was reasonable that there was no reference to the section 75 agreement in the report of handling as this agreement was not transferable to the new application for planning permission. We found that the council was not obligated to provide the exhaustive detail of the waste policy that Mr C felt should have been included in their report. We also found that the council's responses had been given within the published timescales, had not relied upon future events and had been reasonable in accepting that an error, which did not affect the council's conclusions, had been made. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in repairing the door entry system at his block of flats following a fire at his property. Mr C is on the council's housing list and he believes that the council are not following their housing allocation policy correctly. He complained that they failed to provide him with a clear explanation of their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained the council did not take appropriate action in line with their policies to address his concerns about anti-social behaviour at his property.

Our investigation found that the council did progress the repairs to the door entry system where possible. However the delay was due to other residents not allowing the council access to their properties. It is our view the council did not unreasonably delay in repairing the door entry system. We found the complaints about anti-social behaviour related to Mr C's previous tenancy. The council's policy also states that if the complaints about anti-social behaviour relate to a disturbance, then the correct procedure is for the complainant to report this to the police. We also found the council's explanation of their housing allocation policy was correct and that they had applied it correctly. We found no fault or failing in the council's actions therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C was experiencing difficulty negotiating with his neighbour about a repair to the chimney head at his property. Mr C complained that the council provided inconsistent information about the council's roles and responsibilities in relation to the communal repairs. Mr C also complained about the way the council handled his complaint.

The council issued a notice to Mr C and his neighbour, requesting that they take the appropriate action to repair the chimney head. The council explained that they would only carry out default repairs in exceptional circumstances. They also advised that the best option for Mr C would be to take civil action against his neighbour. The council acknowledged that they did not correctly follow their complaints handling procedure, and said that they have since recruited a complaints handling officer and provided training to their staff.

We found that the council did provide consistent information about their role in relation to communal repairs and that they did not at any point advise that they would carry out the default repairs. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council did not correctly follow their complaints handling procedure as they failied to advise Mr C of his rights to bring his complaint to us. 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 deal with his complaint appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, available at https://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 about the council's handling of a planning application for a two-storey extension, which had been submitted by his next door neighbour. Neighbour notifications had not been sent out, and Mr C only found out about the application after planning permission had been granted.

Mr C complained that a council case officer had failed to identify significant visual intrusion into his property from a balcony on the extension. The report of handling made no mention of the balcony, and the case officer had not retained any calculations on the file.

The council provided new calculations, which they said confirmed that the proposal was acceptable. However, in view of shortcomings in the way the application was handled, they agreed to contact the developer to request that the height of a privacy screen at the end of the balcony next to Mr C's property was increased, which was agreed and approved.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. Although the council had drawn up new diagrams and calculations since Mr C complained to them, the adviser commented that their lack of detailed annotation was such that the adviser was unable to interpret them, so could not say whether the council's conclusion that the proposal was acceptable was reasonable. The adviser did not consider that the council had provided sufficient reason to justify the omission of the balcony from the report of handling, noting that the absence of the balcony was clearly significant in this case.

Although the report of handling gave some consideration to visual intrusion from the extension into Mr C's property, we considered the council's failure to consider the impact of the balcony in the report to be an unacceptable oversight. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Mr C also complained about the council's response to his complaint. He was dissatisfied that they had failed to address his concern about visual intrusion into his property through side windows, which had been omitted from their diagrams. He was also dissatisfied with the council's explanation as to why the overshadowing caused by the property was not a material consideration.

We found that the council's response could have been clearer in relation to some technical points. We also noted the adviser's comments that the lack of detailed annotation made it difficult to assess whether their response was reasonable. The council said it was clear that the case officer had assessed the distance from the balcony to Mr C's sun windows, with regard to the council's policy on home extensions, but given that the report of handling had overlooked the existence of the balcony altogether, and no calculations had been retained, we found this statement disingenuous.

We considered that the council's response to the complaint had been unreasonable. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to reasonably evaluate the planning application with regards to the extent of the visual intrusion into his property and for unreasonably responding to Mr C's complaint. These apologies should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Case officers should ensure that their reports are comprehensive, retaining all calculations on file for reference.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints handling staff should ensure that complaints responses adequately address all complaints. Where technical matters are being explained, care should be taken to ensure that these can be understood by a layperson.

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, an advocacy and support worker, complained to us on behalf of his client (Ms A). Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to respond to Ms A's complaints of anti-social behaviour. He also complained that the council failed to assess Ms A's housing application in line with their obligations.

We found that the council had responded appropriately to Ms A's complaints about anti-social behaviour, and that their responses to her complaints were in accordance with their policy. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Regarding the housing application, Ms A was unhappy with the housing award that the council had given her and felt that she qualified for a different award. Mr C wrote to the council on Ms A's behalf to appeal the outcome of the award. In this letter, Mr C provided detailed evidence from Ms A which Ms A considered to be proof that she met the criteria for a different housing award. The council treated Mr C's letter as a complaint and provided a stage two complaints response. We found that the council had incorrectly treated Mr C's letter as a complaint, rather than an appeal against Ms A's housing application. Whilst Mr C had addressed his letter to the incorrect recipient at the council, we found that the council had not communicated clearly with Ms A or Mr C, which had led to confusion. We found that the council did consider a later appeal submitted by Ms A, however at this time they did not take into account the contents of Mr C's earlier letter. Given that the council had not considered all of the relevant information with respect to the appeal, we upheld Mr C's complaint about Ms A's housing application.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms A for failing to take into account all relevant information as part of the appeal of her housing application. 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:

• Staff should take into account relevant information when considering appeals in housing matters.

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 process his high hedge application reasonably.

Mr C applied for a high hedge notice under the High Hedge (Scotland) Act 2013. His application related to trees forming a hedge along his boundary with a neighbouring property. The council assessed the trees and advised Mr C that they would recommend reducing the hedge at a council committee meeting in approximately two months' time. In the interim, Mr C's neighbour carried out selective pruning. Subsequently, the council re-assessed the trees and decided that they did not have an adverse impact on Mr C's property. Therefore, they decided that no action was required.

Mr C raised concerns about the measurements taken in the case, delays in the handling of the case, and the decision to re-assess the trees. The council acknowledged that there were some failings in the case, including in the accuracy of some measurements, and recognised that a delay had occurred. However, the council considered the re-assessment of the trees was necessary, and that there was no further action they could take to address the trees.

After obtaining independent planning advice, we upheld Mr C's complaint. Regarding re-assessment of the trees, we considered it was not unreasonable for the council to re-assess. However, we did find that there was a delay in the council handling the case and that there were some inaccuracies in the measurements that were taken. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the failings in the handling of the case had largely been identified by the council and we found that they had subsequently taken remedial action. As such, we did not consider that further action from the council was necessary and we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) accepted a tenancy from the council. She recalled having been advised that a garden area was for her sole use. When she approached her neighbours over their use of the garden area they told her that they had access and use rights to the area. Miss A sought clarification from the council about this. The council confirmed that the neighbours had some rights to access and use the garden area. Mr C complained to the council that this was contrary to what his daughter had been told when she was offered the tenancy. He further complained that the time the council had taken to clarify matters had been unreasonable. The council told Mr C that their recollection was that Miss A had been aware that there was no certainty over the use of the garden area when she accepted the tenancy and that they had apologised for the unreasonable delay in providing clarification. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he raised his complaints with us.

We found that there was no clear, objective evidence of what Miss A was told before she accepted the tenancy and, consequently, we did not uphold the first aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the time taken to provide clarification had been unreasonable, and we also found no evidence that an apology had been given to Miss A. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C and Miss A for the delay in clarifying rights in relation to garden areas at Miss A's tenancy. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available 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.