Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's response to a report from the police about his daughter (Miss A). Miss A had been involved in an incident following which she was charged with an offence. Shortly afterwards, Miss A and her mother both received letters from the council suggesting that Miss A may be referred to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) if she had any further involvement with the police.

The police later apologised for the way they handled the matter, dropped the charge and apologised to Miss A and her family. Mr C complained that the council's response had been unreasonable. He considered that the letter his daughter received had been threatening and inappropriate in the circumstances.

Following our review of the council's policies and procedures we concluded that the council had acted correctly and accordingly we did not uphold this complaint. However, we did note that whilst we considered it to be correct for the council to highlight to Miss A the possible consequences of further involvement with the police, the council could have used a more empathetic tone in correspondence.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss A, and to her parents, for not having handled this matter more sensitively; and
• reflect on this complaint, and consider how matters could have been handled more sensitively.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to enforce planning conditions associated with a retrospective planning permission for an area of hard standing at a neighbouring property. The permission granted for this area limited the use of the hard standing to uses associated with the small holding to which it was attached and prevented the use of the area for commercial purposes.

Mr C was unhappy that the area was being used for the parking of vehicles and the storage of items associated with a commercial business operated by his neighbour. He was also concerned that the council failed to take steps to have an unauthorised transport container removed from the site. In addition, he was unhappy with the time taken by the council to respond to his reports of unauthorised development.

We found that Mr C was correct in his interpretation of the planning conditions, but noted that the breaches which were taking place were of a temporary nature, because they related to an additional temporary planning consent. The council had taken into account the use of the area by commercial vehicles and were taking steps to address this by assisting the neighbour to obtain a new site for his office and equipment storage. We also noted that the council had been advised that the container would be removed from the site. In these circumstances we were satisfied that the council's decision not to take formal enforcement action was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We were, however, critical of the council's delay in responding to Mr C's reports of breaches in planning control. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Review the evidence they have of the container to ensure that, if it is unauthorised, they are able to take enforcement action to have it removed, should they consider this to be an appropriate course of action.
• Apologise to Mr C for their delay in investigating his reports of breaches in planning control.

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

• Staff should investigate reported breaches of planning control promptly, and in line with their obligations, as detailed in the enforcement charter.

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 Trading Standards department failed to take action against a motor trader in respect of his complaint.

Mr C was unhappy with the condition of a vehicle he purchased and later shipped outside the UK. He was also concerned that the vehicle registration document and a vehicle inspection certificate were not provided. After complaining to the trader, Mr C contacted Trading Standards. Mr C was of the view that Trading Standards were responsible for taking action under the Road Traffic Act 1998 (RTA) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The council explained to Mr C and us that Trading Standards were not empowered to prosecute traders for a breach of Section 75 of the RTA. In addition, the police told Mr C that the RTA only applied to vehicles driven in Britain. The council also explained that Trading Standards could, following the evaluation of relevant, robust and corroborated evidence, make a report suggesting prosecution to the Procurator Fiscal Service (PFS), but that the decision on whether or not to prosecute lay with the PFS and not Trading Standards. In this case, Trading Standards determined that Mr C did not provide them with sufficient evidence upon which to bring or suggest a prosecution, and they explained to Mr C the type of evidence they would need to consider this.

Trading Standards advised Mr C that his best recourse was to follow the guidance of Citizens Advice Scotland on a problem with a used car. Mr C did not accept the council's explanations and advice but his disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of a failing by Training Standards.

We concluded that the actions of the council were reasonable and proportionate to the issues Mr C brought to Trading Standards and therefore we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to appropriately explain the charges relating to two statutory notices served in respect of a property of which he was one of the owners.

A tender process occurred and the contract administrator advised the owners of the property of the estimated costs. Subsequently, an update from the contract administrator advised owners of increased costs to the project. Owners of the property, including Mr C, raised concerns about this. Following the completion of the works the project was subject to a review by an independent external consultant. This review resulted in a number of reductions to the costs of the work.

Mr C complained to the council about the explanations they provided regarding the works. He requested further explanatory material from the council about reconciling costs through the course of the project. The council provided additional information on the expenses for the project, but they also relied on the professional judgement of the independent external consultant who said that the remaining costs were recoverable.

Having reviewed the relevant guidance, and the correspondence between Mr C and the council, we noted that there had been some shortcomings in the explanation given during the course of the works. We did acknowledge, however, that the council had subsequently sought a review of the project, applied a reduction to the costs and provided additional explanations. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Mr C with a copy of the relevant documents detailing changes in the costs to the project.
• Apologise to Mr C for the failures in communication highlighted in this investigation.

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 five outstanding statutory notices which had been issued in respect of his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify his solicitor of one of the statutory notices when he was considering purchasing the property. The council apologised to Mr C that, due to an error, Mr C's solicitor had not been provided with information on this statutory notice. However, they provided evidence that full information on all the outstanding statutory notices had been provided to the previous owner and their solicitor, including the statutory notice in question. Given that the information had been provided to one of the two parties in the sale of the property, we considered that information on the statutory notice should have been available when Mr C was purchasing the property. The council's position, based on legal advice they had obtained, was that they were entitled to pursue Mr C for the debt outstanding on this statutory notice. While we upheld the complaint, given the action taken by the council to apologise to Mr C we made no further recommendations.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide his solicitor with an accurate estimate of the costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices. Mr C complained that the figure given to his solicitor increased substantially in the final invoice. The council provided evidence of information that had been provided on the estimated costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices, including advice that the final cost was still being calculated. They further explained that a search of their records had provided no documentation detailing the estimate of cost suggested by Mr C. In the absence of evidence that written confirmation was provided by the council that the cost for the works would be as suggested by Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council's report on a planning application to their planning committee contained a number of factual inaccuracies. We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that any inaccuracies in the report were minor and were not significant to the overall assessment of the application. The report did not mislead the members of the committee and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the manner in which the council had handled an economic statement that the planning applicant had submitted to support the application had been inadequate and we made a recommendation to the council in relation to this.

Mr C also complained to us that the council had not reasonably handled his enquiries to them about why they had notified residents that the previous application had been withdrawn after they were notified of the new application. We found that the council's response to Mr C on this matter should have included more information about why the problem occurred and the steps they had taken to try to prevent this happening again. We upheld this aspect of this complaint. We also made a recommendation to the council about the letter used to advise planning objectors of the withdrawal of an application in expectation of the submission of a new one.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures for requesting or passively receiving supporting economic statements; and
• review the letter used to advise objectors of the withdrawal of an application in expectation of the submission of a new one.

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint about the council who she stated were not regularly cleaning the street and emptying bins outside her business premises. She had contacted the council on several occasions about this matter but remained unhappy with the response as often nobody would come out to clean or there would be a delay in this being actioned.

The council arranged for additional staff to attend the area and clean but they were unable to access with the road sweeper due to parked cars. They re-arranged to attend and cleaned the immediate area in front of Mrs C's business. She was unhappy about this as there was broken glass on the pavement nearby and rubbish was clogging up the drains. She reported this to the council who escalated her complaint. In their final response they offered an apology for any inconvenience and arranged for a further clean of the street.

Mrs C remained unhappy and asked SPSO to investigate her complaint. We obtained information from the council including case notes and evidence of their local procedures. There was no contrary evidence provided by the council to indicate that they had been meeting their obligations. As Mrs C's business was in a shopping street, local procedure meant it should be cleaned daily. The council had also indicated that they had an increased budget for the new financial year and therefore would be able to improve their street cleaning operations. In light of the absence of any evidence that the street area had been cleaned daily as required, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the standard of street cleaning in her area, particularly in the autumn when leaves are blocking drains and causing flooding. She said that despite her reporting problems with blocked drains and leaf litter many times via the council's online reporting system, and despite the council's agreement that they would carry out a deep clean of the street and add the street to their list for priority leaf removal in the autumn, the council failed to take reasonable steps to effectively clear the street.

The council acknowledged to us their failures to effectively clear Ms C's street when requested to do so and the evidence we considered supported this. As a result, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C, if they have not already done so, for failing to clean her street in line with their responsibilities.
• Arrange for a full street clean to be carried out in Ms C's street, if they have not already done so.
• Add Ms C to their list as a priority for leaf removal during the autumn due to the risk of flooding.

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

• Staff should be aware of their duty to record and action requests for street cleaning, in line with their responsibilities.

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

Miss C complained that staff had unreasonably carried out a hold on her son (Mr A) at his school. The council explained that the decision to carry out the hold was appropriate in terms of the staff's duty of care to keep Mr A safe, and had been carried out by appropriately trained and qualified staff.

Miss C was also concerned that Mr A's leg had been hurt as a result of the hold. During our investigation we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated this matter had been investigated. While the council explained they were unable to establish if Mr A had been hurt during the hold, they felt this was unlikely. We found no evidence that the council had failed to handle the incident in line with their de-escalation policy. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

However, we were concerned that a written statement had not been taken from Mr A after the incident. The views of Miss C and the staff involved had been obtained and while the council had explained why the views of Mr A had not been obtained, we considered that the council should have recorded their reasoning for not obtaining a statement.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• record the reasoning for not obtaining a written record of the views of the pupil after a physical intervention has been used.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about the way the council responded to his reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour's heating equipment. Part of this equipment was subject to a planning application, which was approved by the council's planning service following input from the council's environmental health department. This permission was subject to three conditions, two of which related to noise output and one of which related to the erection of a fence around the equipment. Mr C felt that the equipment was being operated in breach of all three conditions and that the noise from the equipment was a statutory nuisance. He was not satisfied with the way the council responded to these concerns and he complained to the council about this.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the council said that these matters were jointly investigated by the planning service and the environmental health department. We took independent advice from a planning adviser and an environmental health adviser. The planning adviser noted that enforcement action was a discretionary power, and was satisfied that the council's planning department took reasonable steps to investigate whether there had been a breach in planning permission. However, they noted that one of the planning conditions could have been specified more precisely, which would have reduced the scope for misinterpretation. Although they did not consider that the condition was unenforceable, they noted that this was a learning point for the council. Although we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we made a recommendation in relation to this.

During our investigation, we found an instance where a council officer made inappropriate comments about one party of the planning enforcement investigation. We did not consider that the officer had failed to act impartially, yet we felt the council should apologise to Mr C and take steps to remind officers of their responsibility to maintain appropriate communication. We also noted that the planning service had not provided a clear explanation to Mr C regarding the reasons for the outcome of the planning enforcement investigation. We asked the council to remind officers of the importance of this.

The environmental health adviser considered the actions of the environmental health department in relation to the monitoring of the planning conditions related to noise and the investigation of the statutory noise nuisance. They noted that the environmental health officers had sought appropriate technical information about the applicant's equipment and had undertaken visits to monitor the noise output. On the basis of these actions, the adviser considered that the environmental health department had taken appropriate steps to provide the planning service with information about whether conditions had been breached, and to investigate whether a statutory noise nuisance was present. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The adviser noted a number of learning points for the council, and referred to recommended methodologies for investigating low-frequency noise complaints. Although these measures were over and above the statutory requirements for investigation of noise nuisance, we made a recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to a letter he had sent to the building standards department. We were critical that the council did not respond to Mr C's initial letter until he sent a further letter five months later. However, we noted that the council had apologised to Mr C for this and had eventually taken reasonable steps to address Mr C's letters. To the extent that there was a significant delay in providing this response, we considered that the council acted unreasonably and we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the planning adviser's comments in relation to the wording of the planning condition to officers in the planning service;
• remind staff in the planning service to maintain appropriate communication with all parties to a planning application, and to ensure that complainants are clearly informed of the reasons for the outcome of an enforcement investigation;
• feed back the environmental health adviser's comments to officers in the environmental health department; and
• apologise to Mr C for inappropriate comments made. The apology should comply with SPSO guidance and should also set out what consideration the council has given to ensuring they have systems in place to prevent similar situations from arising in the future.