Local Government

Summary

Mr C raised concerns that the council had failed to investigate and act on alleged breaches of a planning condition. The planning condition had been imposed by the council to offset the impact of traffic to build and service a new development. The council accepted there were shortcomings in how the planning condition was framed, which later made it difficult for them to enforce it.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who agreed that the planning condition was not sufficiently precise. The planning adviser considered the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate and act on alleged breaches of the planning condition, however the shortcomings in the framing of the planning condition limited the action they could take. The planning adviser considered that safeguarding residential amenity should have been a cited reason for imposing the planning condition, as well as road safety.

In light of the failings identified in the drafting of the planning condition, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in its framing of the condition.The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The planning team, in conjunction with the roads and infrastructure team, should monitor vehicles' usage of the new development and the road it sits on to assess whether it is a road safety concern. There should be two periods of monitoring (an immediate three-month period and a further three-month period to assess usage over the winter months). If road safety concerns are noted, the council should take appropriate action to resolve this with the company.

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 a decision taken to refer a concern about her child (child A) to the social work department. The referral occurred after the head teacher of child A's primary school became aware of an incident that was considered to be a potential welfare concern to the child. The head teacher separately called Ms C and child A's father (Mr B) and asked them both to attend a meeting. A meeting was not arranged and the head teacher then decided to refer the concern to social work. The reasons given for this decision were that the incident gave rise to a potential welfare concern to child A and that the parents refused to attend a meeting.

Ms C said that neither she nor Mr B were able to attend a meeting on the date suggested and that the school was unwilling to arrange a meeting at a convenient time. We found that the school's records did not provide a consistent picture in relation to whether child A's parents were willing to attend a meeting. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish whether the parents would have attended a meeting on a different date.

We were critical that the record-keeping in relation to this matter was not as complete as it should have been, and records were not kept in accordance with the council's standard circular, 'Protecting Children and Ensuring their Wellbeing'. We made recommendations in relation to this. We concluded that the decision to refer the concern to social work was one that involved the head teacher exercising their professional judgement based on their assessment of the information available at the time. We also found the correct procedure for the referral had broadly been followed. In view of this, we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C also complained that the school had unreasonably failed to amend information in child A's educational records. We found that Ms C had complained that the record was inaccurate, but we did not consider that Ms C made a clear request for this information to be removed. We concluded that the council had not failed to take appropriate action in relation to this matter. For this reason, we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C raised concerns about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that Ms C initially submitted an online complaint to the council, but this had not been logged or acknowledged in accordance with the council's procedure which meant that Ms C had to contact a councillor to progress her complaint. The council acknowledged to us that they had not appropriately responded to Ms C's query about a meeting and we concluded that the council had missed a potential opportunity to resolve (at least part of) the complaint at an earlier stage. We also found that the council had not kept appropriate records of their complaint investigation. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Ms C with a written apology for the shortcomings in record-keeping and the complaints handling failings, which 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:

• Detailed records should be kept in accordance with the procedures within the council's circular 'Protecting Children and Ensuring their Wellbeing'.

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 council opened a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), very close to Mr C's home. Mr C complained to the council about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour occurring at and around the MUGA. Mr C was unhappy with the response of the council and that the facility was being operated without any management plan when this had been a condition of the planning application. Mr C complained to the council about their response. The council accepted that there was a valid complaint about noise nuisance and that they had failed to implement the management plan, but did not accept that this had had an adverse impact on Mr C as he had described to them. The council made recommendations but did not apologise for the failings or take steps to remedy the problems. Mr C was dissatisfied with the response and complained to us about the council's failure to properly manage the MUGA and their response to his concerns.

We investigated and concluded that the council had failed to fulfil the planning conditions with respect to reducing possible noise nuisance through landscaping and use of noise dampening materials and in failing to implement a management plan. We also concluded that the council's complaint investigation was flawed in its scope and the responses lacked the required empathy and commitment to remedial action. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that the MUGA met the planning conditions with an operational management plan. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance. The council should also acknowledge the adverse impact these failures have had on Mr C.

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

• The MUGA should operate with the revised agreed management plan and with the required standard of fencing and landscaping. If this cannot be achieved by the agreed date, the MUGA should be closed immediately until this is possible.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should be empathetic and include appropriate apologies for failures identified, along with adequate explanations and reasons for decisions. Guidance and standards for good investigations are set out in the SPSO Investigations Toolkit available at www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/learning-and-improvement/best-practice-resources/decision-making-tool.

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 unreasonably failed to respond to his concerns of dampness, water leaks and mould, in line with their procedures. He also complained that they failed to respond reasonably after he reported problems with his boiler, and that customer service staff responded unreasonably when he phoned them to report his concerns.

We found that the council did not meet the requirements of their Responsive Repairs Policy in relation to the first two aspects of Mr C's complaint, and we upheld these. We were, however, satisfied that the council acted in line with their customer service standards and complaints procedure in relation to the third aspect of his complaint, and we did not uphold this part.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should provide a written apology which complies with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology.

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 complaints review committee (CRC), in relation to care arrangements for his elderly mother after she was discharged from hospital. Mr C complained that the CRC was unreasonably delayed, and that the council did not take steps to remedy failings identified by the CRC. In addition, Mr C was unhappy with the council's consideration, at a different CRC, of his concerns about an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA).

We found that the council failed to make arrangements for a CRC as soon as Mr C told them he wanted to progress his complaint to that stage. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that delays after this point were largely due to Mr C engaging in protracted correspondence with the council, and due to Mr C's choice not to proceed to a CRC for a period of time, but to approach us instead without having been to a CRC.

We found that the council did take steps to remedy failings identified by the CRC, so we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, one matter identified by the CRC was not addressed, and we have made a recommendation to remedy this specific issue.

We noted that Mr C disagreed with the council's view about when an EQIA should take place. He wanted an EQIA of contracts and polices within the council, in particular relating to new contracts for dementia care. The council's view was that, as no new policies had been introduced, an EQIA was not necessary. We found that the council considered Mr C's concerns and gave a view based on their reading of their obligations in relation to an EQIA. The council then explained why they did not consider an EQIA to be necessary. In the circumstances, we could not conclude that the council's consideration of Mr C's concerns was unreasonable, and we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to progress his complaint to a CRC in a timely manner. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mr C for failing to address one of the findings of the CRC. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an 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

Mr C complained about the council as he felt that they had failed to appropriately investigate reports of anti-social behaviour he and his wife had made about their previous neighbour. He claimed that the council had failed to liaise with Police Scotland over charges brought against the neighbour and that this had led to them failing to take appropriate action against her. However, on investigation we found that the council had followed their procedure for investigating anti-social behaviour. This included liaising with the police and confirming the charges in question, which led them to take appropriate and proportionate action in response. We did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Mr C was also unhappy that the council had provided inaccurate information regarding their allocations policy after he completed a mutual exchange into a new property. He explained that the council had told him that he would not be eligible for a three bedroom property despite having two children of the opposite sex, as they were both under ten years old. However, in the council's recent responses to his complaints, they apologised for providing this information and clarified that, although the law states that a child over ten would be considered overcrowded if sharing a room with a sibling of the opposite sex, the council's policy was more generous, and lowered this threshold to eight. Mr C remained dissatisfied about this, as it had led him to wait two years living in overcrowded conditions until his eldest child's tenth birthday before submitting a housing application. He felt that his housing application should be backdated two years as a result. We upheld this complaint and agreed that backdating of the application would be a reasonable resolution in the circumstances.

Finally, Mr C wished to complain about the council's handling of his complaints as he felt there had been delays. However, on investigation we found that the council had taken sufficient steps to keep Mr C updated and that the time taken to respond was not excessive, given the depth and complexity of his complaints to them.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should backdate Mr C's housing application by two years.

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 told us he had been complaining to the council for a number of years about the lack of street cleaning at his business address. He told us that the council have insisted that the street is cleaned regularly. However, he has seen the same rubbish lying there for weeks. In the council's final response to Mr C's complaint, they advised that the litter on his street was due to uncontained refuse from adjacent sites. They told him that the street is scheduled to be swept on Saturdays, and they will continue to monitor the area. Mr C said the situation did not improve and he tried to complain to the council again five months later. The council advised that he had already exhausted the complaints process.

Our investigation found that the council had failed to clean the street, as Mr C reported seeing the same rubbish lying there for several weeks. Where the rubbish had come from was irrelevant. It was also evident that the steps taken by the council following their investigation had been ineffective, as the problem persisted. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should monitor the area for a period of four weeks

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, who owns a commercial property, complained about the way the council had handled his complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring commercial property.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the other premises. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council has a legal responsibility under the Environmental Health Act 1990 to investigate complaints of noise and to take action where they determine that a statutory noise nuisance exists. We found that the council had investigated the complaints of noise nuisance and had decided that there were no grounds to take statutory enforcement action. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision and the basis upon which they had exercised their judgement in this case. As such, based on the evidence available and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide a full and reasonable response to his complaint. We found that while the responses were outwith the timescales detailed in the complaints handling procedure, the council had met with Mr C and had provided a reasonable response to his representations. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had decided to withdraw the services of their noise pollution team until suitable insulation had been installed. We found that the council had decided, after investigation, that the noise problems were being caused by ineffective noise insulation between the two premises and that, until such time as sound insulation works were carried out, they would not respond to further noise complaints. This was a discretionary decision for the council to take and we found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision to Mr C. Based on the available evidence and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C is a council tenant and she reported a number of incidents of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour to the council. Ms C complained that the council failed to address her complaints about her neighbour's anti-social behaviour within a reasonable timescale. The council advised Ms C they can only investigate the anti-social behaviour if they have corroborating evidence. Our investigation found that the council did investigate Ms C's complaints correctly. When Ms C raised further reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour the council obtained witness statements from other neighbours which corroborated Ms C's complaints. The council met with the neighbour and issued her with a written first warning. The neighbour subsequently moved out of her property. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C agreed to have insulation works carried out to her property from funding provided by a Scottish Government scheme. Mrs C complained to the council about works that were still outstanding and the standard of work carried out to her property. Mrs C was particularly concerned that her windows would not open properly.

Our investigation found that the council did not have a direct technical role in ensuring the works carried out on this project were completed to a reasonable standard, as they had engaged the services of a managing agent for the project. We found that when issues were raised, the council took the appropriate steps, within their remit, by engaging with a managing agent to ensure that works were carried out to an appropriate standard. We did not uphold this complaint.