Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the delay in allocating him to a rehabilitation course. Mr C was unhappy that the course he was scheduled to attend did not go ahead and that the proposed rescheduled date would impact on his chances of early release on parole licence. When the parole board met to discuss Mr C’s case, they acknowledged that he needed to undertake the course and be tested in open conditions before being considered for release. A further parole hearing was, therefore, arranged several months later to allow for this.

Our investigation found that the prison were unable to run the course when they said they would because there were not enough participants for it to go ahead. The prison explained that on average, there is a 20 percent drop-out rate and that all courses are terminated when reduced to four participants. The option of completing the course in another prison or in the community was considered but this was not possible. The prison, therefore, took steps to interview individuals for the course over a six week period. This resulted in more participants being identified and allowed the course to start about eight weeks later.

Mr C completed the course three months later and his review by the parole board was brought forward by a couple of months where his release on parole licence was approved. Being mindful that the prison have limited resources, in Mr C's case we did not consider it was unreasonable for the prison to reschedule the course because it needed more participants. We also found that the eight week delay was not in itself unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is Mr A's representative, complained that there were inaccuracies in the report of a social work complaints review committee meeting, that was presented to the housing and social work services committee. He wanted to correct minor factual accuracies concerning Mr A's title and age. He also disagreed with some of the findings of the report and said he had not received a response to his letter highlighting the inaccuracies.

We found that, in accordance with council procedures, Mr C's comments were appended to the report for consideration by the committee. The council provided a copy of the information presented to the committee and it included Mr C's comments as appendix three to the document. The minutes of the social work services committee meeting also recorded that the report presented to the committee 'included comments from Mr A's representative’ and was approved. We were satisfied that Mr C's comments were heard and taken into consideration by the committee in deciding that the recommendations of the sub-committee be approved and told Mr C we would not be pursuing his complaint any further.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council dealt with a request for approval of matters specified in the conditions of a planning permission. In particular, he said that the council had not informed members of the public about changes in planning guidance; had not given proper consideration to the objections he and his neighbours made; and failed to take account of access and turning arrangements in and to the site concerned.

We investigated the complaint and took into account all the information provided by Mr C and by the council (including the complaints file, complaints procedure and relevant policies). We also obtained independent planning advice and made further inquiries of the council.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation confirmed that changes to the planning guidance concerned had taken place after a period of consultation, and met pre-agreed criteria. Although Mr C considered that further consultation should then have taken place, this was not a requirement of the planning legislation. Also, the documentation confirmed that the council had given due consideration to Mr C and his neighbours' representations but, still, decided to grant approval. They were also satisfied that the developer provided sufficient information to demonstrate that access onto and within the site was satisfactory. Although Mr C provided his own professional advice which demonstrated the contrary, this was not provided until after the application was decided.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council responded to his complaints about the care provided by the council's social work services, and in particular by his son's mental health officer. His complaint had been considered by an independent complaints review committee hearing, as required by the statutory social work complaints procedure.

We reviewed the process the council followed and were satisfied that they had investigated and responded to his complaint in line with the social work complaints procedure. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application and an application for Conservation Area Consent (CAC). Mr C felt that the report on the planning application was misleading and did not express balanced views. He maintained that Historic Scotland had expressed concerns about the development but that these were not included in the planning report or the CAC report. During our investigation the council confirmed that it was their responsibility as planning authority to determine applications and that there was no statutory requirement to consult with Historic Scotland on applications for CAC or planning permission. There was only a statutory duty to notify Historic Scotland of the council's proposed decision on CAC. However, in terms of best practice they had informally consulted Historic Scotland on the CAC application. When commenting on this, Historic Scotland had raised some concerns about the development, and while the council confirmed that these concerns were considered as part of the planning process they accepted that the concerns raised by Historic Scotland should have been reflected in the CAC application report.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the report on the application demonstrated that all planning considerations had been fully considered, as had the issues raised by Historic Scotland. However, we felt that Historic Scotland 's comments should have been included in both reports and we drew our views on this to the attention of the council.

Mr C also said that the council had unreasonably sought comments from Historic Scotland after the applications had been determined. We were satisfied that, in line with procedures, the council had notified Historic Scotland of their intention to grant consent for a CAC application after the committee meeting, giving Historic Scotland the opportunity to call-in the application if they disagreed with the council's decision. In this case Historic Scotland did not call the application in to Scottish Ministers. While we did not uphold the complaint, we drew to the council's attention that it would be good practice for the report on the CAC application to have explained that the decision to grant consent would be subject to notification to Historic Scotland.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take action against a neighbour who had applied for planning permission for a house in a field beside Mr C's home. Mr C was concerned that the applicant described the land in an earlier application for planning permission in principle as 'agricultural' and in a recent application for approval of detailed permission as 'paddock'. Mr C was of the view that the applicant was untruthful on his application and land ownership certification. He also complained that the council did not refer the application to the appropriate committee and so it was decided by the head of planning under delegated powers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We reviewed the council's actions and determined that, although the land was described in two different ways, certification about agricultural use was not required as this was not a tenanted piece of land. In addition, as it was within the settlement boundary and not in open countryside, the use of land was not relevant to the application. In terms of the council's decision not to require the application to be considered at committee, their standing orders require this to be done where more than five objections are received to a planning application. However, they treat separate objections coming from the same household as one objection, which they are entitled to do. In this case as five objections were received from three households, we were of the view that the council's interpretation of this as a total of three objections was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a council employee, is also a council tenant living in a property that was 'tied' to his employment. He complained that the process followed by the council, prior to increasing the rent on what were formerly tied properties, did not comply with their responsibilities in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (the Act). In addition, he complained that the council failed to obtain written agreement, between landlord and tenant, before varying the terms of the tenancy, again, in breach of the Act.

When we examined the complaints it because clear that both parties had different interpretations of the Act and that to reach a clear view, a decision would need to be made on which interpretation was correct. As this can only be determined by the courts, we were unable to uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) who is a tenant of a housing partnership. The flat above Ms A has been let to a charity which houses young people who have been in trouble with the police or who need help with problems. Mr C said the housing partnership did not discuss this with Ms A or her neighbours, and that she has been bombarded by noise, parties and, on one occasion, water coming through her ceiling.

We did not uphold the complaint. Our investigation found that the partnership had followed their own policies and procedures and allocated the property to the charity appropriately. We also found that Ms A had not initially reported any instances of antisocial behaviour and that the partnership had advised her that if she did so, they would take the appropriate action.

Summary

Mr C said that the fence between his and his elderly neighbour's garden blew down during the storms of January 2012. In June 2012 he noticed that other tenants whose fences had blown down at the same time were having these repaired. On making enquiries he said he was told his fence was not going to be repaired at that time. He was unhappy about this and made a formal complaint. Mr C was not happy that he had been assessed as being a priority two for the work, and only tenants assessed as priority one were having their fences repaired at that time. He said he felt discriminated against because the association were repairing fences for other tenants and he considered that the fact he shared his fence with an elderly neighbour meant that it should have been classed as priority one.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that Mr C's fence was inspected when it was damaged. A works order was immediately raised to remove the damaged fence and gate, as they were a danger to the public, and this was done a week later. The replacement of his fence was, therefore, assessed as being a priority two, as, although the fence was removed for safety reasons, it was decided that renewal would be part of a future fencing programme. At that time, only priority one work was being undertaken. We were satisfied that the association assessed Mr C's priority for the repairs to be undertaken according to their criteria. However, during our consideration of Mr C's complaint the association undertook a review of the type of work they are able to undertake within their repairs service and decided to suspend the renewal of fences until further notice.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the board that hospital staff failed to clearly explain to her late father (Mr A) or members of his family, the seriousness of his condition and that he had pancreatic cancer. The family only found out when they opened a letter which was intended for Mr A's GP.

We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation found that there was evidence in the clinical records that staff had explained to Mr A on many occasions that there was a possibility that he had cancer. Mr A had, however, told staff that he did not wish any of his family members to be present when he received the results of investigations and said that he would tell them himself.