Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling and waste from his address as scheduled. He also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

The council acknowledged there had been missed collections from Mr C's street and that reasons for this included collection crews having failed to record missed collections. This resulted in Mr C having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions.

We found that until we enquired, the council had failed to investigate and respond to Mr C's second formal complaint about the bin collections. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

The council have taken action to address their failings and Mr C told us the bin collection service was now consistent. We have therefore made no recommendations to the council.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that he had been experiencing odours in his house for several years and he believed that these odours were coming from his next door neighbour's house. Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to investigate and stop the odour ingress.

During the investigation, we carefully reviewed all the information provided by Mr C and the council. We found that the council had carried out a number of investigations and repairs, including installing air quality monitoring equipment and using a smoke machine to determine where the odours were ingressing, sealing stair treads and skirting boards, replastering walls, and repairing the solum (the area underneath the floorboards). Whilst we found that the council had taken reasonable action to investigate the odours and make repairs to the house, we recommended that the council consider whether there was any further action they could take as a smoke bomb test had revealed some ingress from one house into another.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether there are any further actions available to them that would be appropriate to implement in this case, given the results of the smoke bomb test.

Summary

Mr C reported problems with the behaviour of his neighbour, who is a private tenant, including a number of reports of noise nuisance, verbally abusive behaviour and other anti-social behaviour. Mr C wanted the council to take steps to address his concerns with his neighbour and his neighbour's landlord, who he had also contacted directly.

Council wardens attended following reports but concluded there was not sufficient evidence of noise or other nuisance to take further action.

The council made a number of attempts to resolve the situation with preventative measures but these were not successful.

As matters escalated, the council met with Mr C and the landlord but Mr C continued to experience behaviour from his neighbour that caused him distress.

Mr C complained to the council about their lack of action and a number of specific concerns about his interactions with council staff. The council responded to his specific concerns. Mr C remained concerned that the council had not taken adequate steps to address the problems he was experiencing and complained to our office.

Our investigation considered the statutory duty placed on the council to act, as well as the council's own procedures. We found that, in the absence of evidence of serious anti-social behaviour, the council had no duty to act. We also considered that the council's decision (that the evidence they had about the behaviour of Mr C's neighbour did not give them grounds for further action) was a reasonable one. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the way the council handled a request for a non-material variation (NMV) to a planning application. He said that the council had withheld and delayed the online publication of documentation. The NMV report by the council had contained two inaccuracies, which the council had already identified and agreed. Mr C felt that the council had failed to have appropriate policies/procedures in place to prevent inaccuracies in the published report and that, because of the errors identified, they had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV.

We sought independent planning advice. We found that there was no statutory obligation on the council to publish these documents. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that it did not appear that appropriate cross-checking had occurred in this case. We were concerned that the system of checks put in place in part to identify errors had failed on this occasion. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV due to the factual errors in the report. However, given that the council had already acknowledged the errors, apologised and discussed the matter with the planning officer concerned, and that the errors in the report did not lead us to question the soundness of the council's overall decision, we did not make further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• audit and, if necessary, review their process for checking reports and provide us with evidence of the outcome of the audit, as well as of action taken to improve any shortfalls.

Summary

Mrs C is the chair of the board of trustees for a charity and complained on behalf of the charity. The charity had applied for funding from the council's area committee discretionary fund, and their application was considered along with others.

The grant application scoring panel had recommended an award to the charity. However, following a vote to award another organisation a sum of money, a decision was made to award the charity a sum less than had originally been recommended. The other organisation had been recommended for a nil award by the scoring panel, and had not met the minimum points in two key criteria to be eligible for funding, in terms of the scoring framework. The shortfall in the budget had been balanced by reducing the award recommended for the charity. All other applicants were awarded grants in line with the scoring panel's recommendations.

We found that although the council's decision was discretionary, they ought to have provided a clear and robust rationale for deviating from the scoring panel's recommendations. The reason the council gave for their decision was vague, and called into question the entire scoring process. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the lack of transparency in their decision-making process;
• remind elected members of the importance of transparency in all decision-making; and
• review Mrs C's case and reflect on the issues raised in it, with a view to identifying learning and improvement to ensure transparency in future decision-making.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly investigate his concerns that staff at the company he worked for, who provided services at a council homeless unit, were falsifying time sheets and claiming to be working when they were not. He also complained that staff were displaying confidential, and inappropriate, information about residents in public view on a notice board in the facility.

We considered the available evidence and noted that the council had appointed an internal auditor who reviewed the evidence provided by Mr C to support his concerns, interviewed staff and reviewed documentation associated with the contract. The council also instructed a senior officer, who was responsible for data protection, to carry out an unannounced visit to the premises to inspect the notice boards.

The evidence demonstrated that the council had taken Mr C's concerns seriously and carried out appropriate investigations in order to ensure that the company was complying with the terms of their contract with the council. They also investigated the data security and, after inspection, were satisfied that the information held on the notice boards was displayed in staff areas to which the public did not have access and that the information itself was appropriate given the nature of the facility and the needs of the residents.

As the council could demonstrate that they had taken Mr C's complaints seriously, and carried out appropriate investigations, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A said that the council delayed in awarding free personal care to her mother when she moved into a care home. Ms A was also unhappy with the way the council dealt with her subsequent complaint.

Following discussions with us, the council acknowledged that they had missed an opportunity to join up their different services so that they could provide Ms A's mother with a comprehensive service. They apologised for this failure and they agreed to reimburse the full free personal care contribution being claimed by Ms A.

As Ms C was happy with this outcome, we closed the case as resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application to construct an anaerobic digestion plant (a plant in which farm and food waste is digested for methane) on land near his property.

Mr C said he only became aware of the project after construction started as he had not been consulted during the planning stage. It became apparent that the council had received an application over a year previously, consulted, and ultimately approved it.

Mr C complained that the council did not specifically refer to his property during the planning process. He also raised concerns that the council did not include a buffer zone around his property in accordance with the Scottish Planning Policy.

The council said that they did not need to refer specifically to Mr C's property, and noted the planning documents referred to nearby dwellings. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the imposition of a buffer zone, the council said this was not mandatory under the policy. However, they said they had considered this and came to the conclusion it was not necessary.

After receiving independent advice from a planning consultant, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to specifically refer to his property. While we noted Mr C's concerns about awareness of his property, we found no procedural failing in the council's consultation process, or any requirement to specifically identify his property. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the buffer zone. We noted that the council were unable to provide any evidence that this had been taken into account, which we would have expected in the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff, and report back on any action taken.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C raised concerns about the council's handling of various planning applications for a site, including their home. In particular, they said that certain applications failed to protect their home by ensuring that its floor level and that of its neighbour were built to a similar level. As a consequence of this, they said that the council failed to assess the impact of their neighbour's sun lounge on their amenity and privacy.

We made enquiries to the council who confirmed that they had since established that the levels of the properties concerned were not in accord with the applications granted and the houses were not built as envisaged. The difference in levels had led to Mr and Mrs C's property being overlooked.

We took independent planning advice and we found that one of the properties concerned was too high, whereas, the other was too low. The consequence of this was that overlooking of Mr and Mrs C's house was unavoidable. The council were largely responsible for this. Similarly, because the floor levels were incorrect, the council would not have been able to properly assess the impact of the neighbours' sun lounge on Mr and Mrs C's property. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology to recognise the situation;
• review the staff guidance notes to include the treatment of window alterations during the course of development as consent variations or as permitted development;
• make a formal apology for their inability to assess the impact of the sun lounge;
• be prepared to meet the costs of any agreed solution; and
• review staff guidance notes on planning application handling with regard to successive permissions issued for the same site; the consistency of conditions which require to be carried through from one permission to any future permission; consideration of site levels and especially any proposed changes for residential amenity and overlooking.

Summary

Mr C owns a flat in a block of six, half of which are owned by the council and half of which are privately owned. Mr C complained that the council failed to write to him to advise of repairs that needed to be carried out in communal areas and that as a consequence no estimates were obtained and he had not been aware that work had taken place.

The council invoiced Mr C in March 2016 for work carried out in April 2015 and August 2015. He complained about the delay in receiving the invoice and asked for a breakdown of costs, which the council said they were unable to provide. The council instructed a debt collection agency to recover the debt, and Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify him that this would be their next step.

The council provided evidence showing that they had notified owners of planned repairs, allowing them time to obtain alternative estimates. Mr C accepted that in the case of emergency repairs the council did not need to notify owners in advance. We considered that the council had not unreasonably failed to notify Mr C in advance of repairs that required to be carried out, and did not uphold this complaint.

We found that the delay in issuing the invoice for repairs in April and August 2015 was unacceptable, and recommended that the council apologise for this.

With regards to providing a breakdown of costs, the council's position was that repairs are often carried out by sub-contractors, who invoice the council in batched accounts. We considered it reasonable for the council not to provide a breakdown of costs in these situations but recommended that when possible, for example when repairs are carried out by council tradespeople, the council should provide a breakdown of costs.

Mr C complained that the council gave him no notice that they would be instructing a debt collection agency to recover sums owed. However, the council provided evidence showing that there had been a clear statement to that effect on the overdue invoice sent to Mr C. We did not uphold this complaint.

We noted Mr C's frustration at not being able to communicate with the council, especially regarding emergency repairs. We recommended that the council nominate a key contact for communication about any matters relating to communal parts of the building and provide Mr C with contact details.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in issuing an invoice;
• provide a breakdown of costs on invoices where possible, and confirm to us that this will be implemented; and
• nominate a key contact for communication regarding communal areas of the building, and provide Mr C with contact details.