Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to the council as he was not happy with their response to his repair request relating to damp in his property. Mr C had previously experienced damp in the property and the council had attended and made repairs. The problem returned approximately six weeks later and Mr C had reported it again to the council. They attended the property and it was found that the cavity wall insulation had deteriorated. The council arranged to have this replaced.

Mr C was of the view that the poor quality of the cavity wall insulation was the main cause of damp in the property, and he believed this should have been identified and remedied by the council sooner. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his requests for repair, and that they had dealt unreasonably with his subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had responded to the repairs within reasonable timescales, and that the options they had explored to treat the damp before having the cavity wall insulation replaced were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

With regards to complaints handling, whilst we found that the council's response to Mr C's stage one complaint had been late and they had not apologised for this, we found that the complaints handling was reasonable overall. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, but we did offer feedback to the council to stress that, if a complaints response is going to be outwith the timescale, then complainants should be notified where possible, and apologies for this should be provided.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's failure to empty her communal food waste bins and their failure to investigate her complaint.

Ms C told us that the communal bins were overflowing and that there was no bin liner in the bin. The problem continued to persist for a long time and Ms C tried to raise a formal complaint with the council. The council did not provide Ms C with a final response to her complaint.

We found that the council failed to empty the communal food waste bins on numerous occasions over a protracted length of time. We also found that the council failed to thoroughly investigate Ms C's complaint and failed to provide a satisfactory response for their failings. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

The council told us that they had been in touch with Ms C regularly to ensure that the service was now satisfactory. We asked for evidence of this and did not make any further recommendations regarding bin pick-ups. However, we did make recommendations regarding the handling of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Ms C to apologise for failing to investigate her complaint in line with their procedures. They should provide an explanation for their failings.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints handling staff should be reminded of the complaints handling procedure.

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 applied for, and was granted, planning permission to create a pavement crossing and a parking area within his garden. An additional permit was required for the excavations needed to lower the kerb. The council, having initially given Mr C verbal approval, did not issue a permit for the dropped kerb. Mr C complained to us that he was unreasonably given conflicting information in relation to the dropped kerb application. Mr C said he had already paid a contractor to lay paving slabs to make the parking area, which he was unable to use. Mr C also complained that the council took too long to respond to the complaint.

We found that the planning process and the process by which permission can be sought to carry out excavations to a road are governed by entirely separate legislation. The council's roads service failed to submit an objection to Mr C's planning application by the deadline date. Their objection related to the impact that Mr C's plans would have on other residents, in particular that it would reduce the number of available on-street parking places. It was not clear what impact, if any, this objection would have had on the planning committee decision.

The relevant roads legislation says the council may give permission to excavate the public road. In this case the council did not do so. We found that there was unreasonable confusion in respect of the permit application. Verbal permission should not have been given until any concerns about it had been properly considered by the council. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the council failed to issue responses to Mr C's complaints within the timescales set out in their policy. We took into account that the council had already offered sincere apologies for the lengthy delay. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The council told us they were in the process of carrying out a review of the planning process where a separate permit to carry out excavations in the road or footway are subsequently required. We asked the council to let us know the outcome of this review.

The council told us they had invited Mr C to make an insurance claim for reimbursement of the cost of work already carried out before the permit was refused. We asked the council to let us know the outcome of any claim Mr C submitted.

Recommendations

We recommended that the City of Edinburgh Council:

• advise us of the outcome of the review already underway in relation to the planning process in cases where Section 56 permits are subsequently required; and
• advise us of the outcome of the insurance claim.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of issues related to his son (Mr A)'s primary school. Mr A had special adjustments in place which Mr C felt had been disclosed inaccurately to other parents by teaching staff. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which his complaint about the matter was handled by council staff.

We found that the council had apologised to Mr C and his family for making inaccurate comments at a public meeting. We considered various possible factors raised by Mr C, but did not find evidence to clearly identify that any specific teacher or council officer had released confidential information about Mr A's special adjustments.

However, we considered that certain remarks made to Mr C were not appropriate; that a council officer should not have notified elected members not to respond to Mr C's correspondence; and that the handling of Mr C's complaint regarding this matter was not adequate. We upheld these aspects and recommended that the council apologise to Mr C and share our findings with relevant staff.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified and draw these findings to the attention of relevant staff.

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.