Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to protect his family lair (burial plot) in line with their responsibilities by approving the internment of the ashes of his brother-in-law without his knowledge or approval, and that the council failed to respond to his subsequent complaint in accordance with their responsibilities.

We were satisfied that the council acted in line with the Regulations for the Management of Burial Grounds in East Lothian, and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's response to his subsequent complaint, as we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaint within 20 working days and failed to keep him appropriately updated. The council told us they had since improved their complaints handling processes, and had carried out staff training, and they provided us with evidence of that.

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 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. However, we found that in responding to Mr 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 Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr 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 should be 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

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to improve access to a site they owned at the same time as considering planning applications for the site. He was concerned that the works to facilitate access suggested that consent would be granted and, as such, prejudiced the planning applications. He was also unhappy with the consistency of the explanations he had received from the council about the access improvements.

We noted that the council had planned these works for some time prior to the submission of any planning applications, but the works had been delayed and were only initiated around the time of the submission of the applications. We noted that the council were carrying out the access improvements to improve the marketability of the site. We found no evidence to indicate that carrying out the access improvements was in any way unreasonable or inappropriate, nor did we find any evidence that it had prejudiced the planning applications. Indeed, during the course of our investigations, one of the applications was refused consent by the council. For this reason, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, the council failed to provide us with any evidence to refute Mr C's claims that the information provided by the council during the course of his discussions with council officers and elected members was inconsistent and inaccurate. As we did not have any evidence to show that the council were consistent in their advice and information, 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 provide him with consistent information and explanations for the work carried out. The apology should meet the standards set out in the 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's decision to grant planning permission for an equestrian centre close to his home. In particular, he said that objections to the development were not properly considered and that it should have been treated as a 'bad neighbour' development (a development that could have a negative impact on neighbouring properties). Mr C also said that the siting of the proposed development was not in accordance with Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. However, the council maintained that none of this was the case and that the application had been considered reasonably and appropriately.

We obtained independent planning advice and this showed that while all the objections made to the plans had not been reproduced in full in a committee report for the attention of councillors who were making the decision, it was not reasonable to do this. However, the report made it clear that the summaries produced should be read in conjunction with the full text which was available via a weblink. We further found that it was a matter of judgement for the planning authority whether or not a development constituted a 'bad neighbour' development having regard to the wider public interest. While the council took the view that it was not a 'bad neighbour' development, and did not advertise it as such, they had, nevertheless, advertised the proposals. Even if the council had considered the development to be a 'bad neighbour' development, the advert placed would have satisfied Scottish Government regulations. Finally, we found that the report associated with the application assessed the proposals against the LDP policies and while the application did not comply with all aspects of the LDP, the council had considered other relevant policies and material considerations which justified approval. The report had explained the reasons why such a conclusion was reached. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A had complained to the council about anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, in particular noise and dog fouling in the garden, but felt that they had failed to properly investigate her concerns. The council advised that they had responded appropriately to all of Ms A's complaints of anti-social behaviour, including carrying out regular visits to the property.

During the course of our investigation we found that there had been a number of occasions where Ms A had not allowed the council officers access to her property so that they could witness the noise from her neighbour. We also found that the council had contacted the neighbour and spoke to them about the complaints. The council also visited the area a number of times to look for dog fouling, and found no evidence. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to vary the high hedge notice that had been served in relation to his neighbour's garden. He claimed that the maximum height for the hedges in terms of the notice had been calculated with reference to there being a difference in height of one metre between his neighbour's garden and his. He claimed that the base measurements had been wrong and the hedges were higher than they ought to be, but the council insisted they were within the requirements of the notice.

The council's position was that they did not have the authority to vary the notice, since it had been superseded by an appeal to the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, they had gone to considerable lengths to try to resolve the dispute with Mr C. We found the council's position to be reasonable and we therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to assess her application for discretionary rate relief (discounts on business rates bills) in line with their obligations, and within an appropriate timescale.

Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C within a reasonable timescale, and that the decision taken was reasonable. It is for the council to determine their policy in this area, and they applied their policy appropriately. We found that the fact that Ms C had not included the exact documentation indicated on the relevant application form meant the application needed a more detailed review, and this had taken time. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to the concerns she raised about the quality of service she had received from the council and their contractor in relation to the installation of a new heating system at her home. Ms C had complained to the council about the safety and reliability of the new heating system, as well as damage done to her carpet during the installation work. She was unsatisfied with the council's response to her complaints and brought them to us.

We found that, although the council acted in line with the requirements of the housing repairs policy, there were failings in their handling and response to Ms C's complaint. The council failed to log Ms C's initial complaint properly and they did not issue a reply to the concerns she had raised. They also failed to acknowledge a subsequent complaint Ms C submitted, and failed to respond within their timescales. We found that the council also failed to be clear with Ms C about their processes for applying for and granting compensation for damaged property. We upheld Ms C's complaint. We noted that the council had since acknowledged some of their failings, and we asked them to provide evidence of the action and staff training they had carried out as a result of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The council should develop a compensation policy.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff responding to complaints should be aware of their responsibilities, as per 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 complained about the council's handling of an outstanding statutory notice which had been issued on his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C stated that he had been advised by solicitors acting for the council that responsibility for the debt rested with the previous owner. He also said that his solicitors had been advised that the statutory notice that was the subject of the complaint had been superseded by later statutory notices.

The evidence available demonstrated that the council and their solicitors had clearly explained that the legal position was that it is the owner of the property at the date on which the council issues its recovery accounts who is liable to meet the cost of remedial works carried out. We found no evidence that solicitors acting for the council had indicated the debt rested with the previous owner. We also found no evidence that the council had advised that the statutory notice had been superseded by a later statutory notice. Evidence available demonstrated that the work detailed in the statutory notice had started prior to the later statutory notices being issued. In view of the evidence available, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a neighbouring dog owner who persistently allowed his dog to foul in the street. Mr C repeatedly contacted the council about this problem and made a formal complaint when this issue continued to occur. He was unhappy with the perceived lack of action from the council with no staff visiting his property to discuss this issue. He received a verbal response to his complaint over the phone and noted no improvement following this, so escalated his complaint. The council investigated the matter and partially upheld the part of Mr C's complaint which related to poor communication and the length of time to respond to his complaint. However, they did not agree that staff had misinformed him about the actions they could take.

During our investigation we gathered information from the council, including their policies and procedures on dog fouling. We found that Mr C had made numerous reports of fouling to the council but they had not met with him or contacted him to discuss the situation. It was only once he made a formal complaint that he received a response and this was a delayed response to his complaint which was completed over the phone. The accompanying case note did not sufficiently outline what was discussed and this formed part of Mr C's escalated complaint. The council highlighted that their policy was not to issue a fixed penalty notice unless council officers had witnessed an offence, but the legislation does allow for exceptions to be made where strong, objective evidence is provided. However, this does not appear to have been explained to Mr C until almost four months after his initial report of an issue, and only then as part of the council's final response to his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaints as there was a lack of contact and communication from council staff during the initial months when Mr C reported numerous incidents. There was also a delayed response to his complaint and the evidence to summarise the council's response was lacking in detail.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to take reasonable action to stop dog fouling in his street. Apologise further for failing to respond to appropriately to him. 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:

• In cases where they make a decision to respond verbally to a complaint at stage one, instead of in writing, the case note to accompany the phone call should include an appropriate level of detail to reflect what was discussed.

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.