Local Government

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.

Summary

The funeral service for Mrs C's late mother (Mrs A) was delayed due to earlier services over-running. However, Mrs C said that Mrs A's family and the other people attending the funeral were not pro-actively made aware of the delay and that they were not advised that there was nowhere sheltered for them to sit whilst they waited after they vacated their cars. The council responded to Mrs C's complaints about these matters, but did not accept that they bore any responsibility for the delay or that any further action by them was required.

Mrs C brought her complaints to us. She complained that the council did not act reasonably to minimise the delay to the funeral, that they did not advise the family or the other people attending the funeral of the likelihood of a delay and that they did not respond reasonably to her complaints.

We found that the council could not have acted to minimise the delay once it emerged, so we did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, we agreed that several actions that the council had proposed in their response to us could reduce the likelihood of similar delays occurring in the future.

We found that the council did not act reasonably in communicating the circumstances to Mrs A's family or the other people attending the funeral, and so we upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

We further found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints. We found that they had not responded in line with their complaints procedure and that they had included contradictory information in their responses to Mrs C. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that they:
• did not act reasonably to advise her family or other mourners of the likelihood of a delay to Mrs A's funeral service
• did not respond to her complaints in line with their complaints procedure
• provided her with contradictory information within and between complaints responses.
• The apologies 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:
• implement a system to ensure that, when a service is booked, an advisory note will be issued automatically to the funeral director or person making the booking regarding the length of service and what is expected of the funeral directors and celebrants with regard to timeous running of services and what the consequences may be if a service overruns
• give further practical and sensitive consideration to installing a light system in the service chapel, which will be visible to officiants but not mourners, and which will be operated by crematorium staff, to advise the officiant of the time left for the service to be completed.Advise an appropriate point of contact immediately when likely delays to funeral services emerge.
• Advise an appropriate point of contact immediately when likely delays to funeral services emerge.
• Additional seats should be installed outside of the crematorium. This should ensure that, if delays occur, those waiting do not have to stand whilst waiting for entry to the crematorium.
• Information should be provided to arriving mourners when there are delays to services beginning, or when sheltered waiting areas cannot be accessed at the crematorium.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should not contain contradictory information.

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's Scottish Welfare Fund team had taken an unreasonable length of time to fulfil a community care grant award for removal costs. Mr C said that, as a result, he incurred additional rent charges due to not being able to move into his new property and not receiving housing benefit for that new property until he was a resident there. He was also unhappy with delays in the council responding to his complaint and not being kept updated on the progress of his complaint.

We noted that the council processed his community care grant application well within the statutory timescales. The council uses a particular removal firm to fulfil awards and, after an award is made, informs the firm and leaves them and the applicant to liaise about the details of the removal. We found nothing in the Scottish Welfare Fund regulations or statutory guidance to suggest that this arrangement was not allowable. We also noted that the council contacted the removal firm for an update after a reasonable length of time. The firm informed the council that they had issues contacting the applicant but were able to make arrangements soon afterwards. Overall, we did not find any evidence of maladministration during the application process or in the council's method of fulfilment. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we did find that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to Mr C's complaint. We also found that they did not keep him updated and that they missed their own timescales that they laid out to him. Although there was an apology in their response to him, we did not consider that it was adequate or that their response fully explained the reasons for the delays. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and instructed the council to provide Mr C with a fuller explanation and an apology for the delays.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in complaints handling.

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 bought a property and, upon moving in, discovered that many aspects of work and decoration in the house were either not completed or were of a poor standard. The council had issued a certificate of completion to the previous owner prior to the sale. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy as they spent a significant amount of money remedying the issues, and they said that they would not have bought the property had they known about these issues. They complained to us that the council failed to carry out appropriate inspections of the property prior to issuing a certificate of completion.

The council said that they had carried out an inspection and identified a number of actions which had to be taken before a certificate of completion could be provided for the previous owner. The owner advised the council when these actions had been taken, and the council carried out a further inspection. Following the second inspection, the council were satisfied that the works had been completed and a certificate of completion was issued.

We looked into this complaint and noted that it was not possible for us to establish the quality of the inspections or the work that had been carried out, as we had not been present at that time. After looking at the council's correspondence on this matter, we were satisfied that during their first inspection the council had listed issues which needed to be addressed, and that they had then followed up on this with a second inspection. They had gathered suitable evidence of the work having been completed from the tradesmen involved, and their actions appeared to us to have been reasonable, in line with their responsibilities under the Buildings (Scotland) Act 2003. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to complaints he had made to them. Mr C's home is next to an open area of council greenspace. A nearby school uses the greenspace for organised sports lessons and school team activities. These uses often result in balls arriving in Mr C's garden. He sought information from the council about their designation of the land and the council told him that it was designated as an amenity residential open space. Once Mr C received this information he complained to the council that, given this designation as an amenity residential open space, the use of the greenspace for sports activities was contrary to their parks rules. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response and raised his complaints with our office.

The council explained to us that the land in question is not designated as amenity residential open space and that it in fact forms part of a school estate and is part of the school's playground area. The council clarified that the land is designated as open space as it is also accessible by the general public when not in use by the school. During our investigation, we looked at the relevant council policies alongside the history of the land in question and the legal restrictions on its use. We concluded that the council's position was reasonable and that, consequently, no action was required by the council.

However, we were critical of the council as we considered that they had failed to investigate properly and had failed to respond accurately to Mr C's complaints. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to properly consider his 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

Ms C complained to the council about her neighbour's dog barking. Ms C believes her neighbour is keeping more dogs at their home than they have permission for. She told us she felt the council did not take her concerns seriously and they did not follow the procedure they advertise on their website. The council responded to her complaint and told her that the Safer Neighbourhood Team does not deal with dog barking. The council advised Ms C that she has the option to pursue private legal action.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council failed to take the appropriate action in line with their policies. The council were not able to take further action as they required independent evidence of the dog barking. We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation did find the information provided on the council's website was out of date. They informed us that they had already made some changes, but we found that there was still come incorrect information on the website and we asked that they send us evidence that they have corrected all of the conflicting information.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council following an upgrade to her heating system. She told us that after the work was carried out she noticed that her furniture, carpet and other personal items had been damaged and she submitted an insurance claim to the council. The council denied responsibility for causing damage to her property. She complained that the council unreasonably delayed in the handling of her insurance claim. The council offered to have her carpet re-laid as a goodwill gesture. Mrs C complained that the council delayed in repairing her carpet.

Regarding the insurance claim, our investigation found that the insurers requested a report from the council. However, the council employee that received the request was on sick leave and this was not picked up by another member of staff. We upheld this complaint and fed back to the council that they should consider reviewing their internal procedures to ensure cases are progressed while a member of staff is on leave. Our investigation also found that the council took 19 weeks to repair the carpet and we considered this to be unreasonable. We upheld this complaint and asked the council to provide Mrs C with a written apology.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mrs C to apologise for the unreasonable delay.

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.