Local Government

Summary

Mr C said that he complained to the council in October 2014 about a noise nuisance emanating from business premises close to his home but that they failed to follow correct procedures and delayed in dealing with his complaints. The council said that they had investigated all of his complaints and responded to him but found no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance which they could pursue.

We investigated the complaint and found that after Mr C had been in contact with them, the council made a site visit to the premises concerned, spoke to the operator, issued Mr C with noise logs to complete, installed noise monitoring machinery in Mr C's house and took readings. However, no evidence was produced to confirm that a statutory noise nuisance existed which would have allowed the council to issue a noise abatement notice. We also found that, overall, the council responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints and that there were no unreasonable delays in the way they handled his reports of noise. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's neighbour applied for planning permission to build an extension on the gable end of their property closest to Mr C's property. Mr C received a neighbour notification letter from the council which invited him to submit comments about the application. In response to this, Mr C sent a letter of objection to the council which expressed a number of concerns about the proposed development. Mr C noted that the plans submitted with the application contained inconsistencies and stated that the development was not in accordance with the local development plan for the area. Mr C added that he felt that the development would increase the risk of flooding to his property and would also affect his privacy. The council, after receiving Mr C's letter in addition to relevant consultation responses, decided to grant planning permission to Mr C's neighbour's application.

Mr C was not satisfied that the council had appropriately considered his objections and said that they had not followed the relevant planning rules when considering the application. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had reasonably assessed the effect the development would have on Mr C in terms of the relevant policies and guidance, and had reasonably taken into account the material objections he raised. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the council had upheld one aspect of Mr C's complaint and had agreed to review procedures as a result. We accordingly made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence that a review of procedures in the relevant team has taken place.

Summary

Mr C was involved in a custody dispute with his former partner. Mr C complained that two letters on council headed notepaper were produced in court proceedings which he considered to be false or fraudulently obtained. Mr C complained that the council had not acted reasonably when he reported this to them.

We were satisfied that the council investigated the allegations Mr C made and having established that the letters were unsanctioned and unauthorised, we found that they acted appropriately to remedy the situation by writing to the court and the child benefit office to say so. We were satisfied that the council's obligations under the Data Protection Act meant they were not able to share information about other people with Mr C and were obliged to treat internal staffing matters as confidential. This meant that they were not entitled to share the outcome of their internal investigation with him, or to disclose whether or to what degree staff had been subject to disciplinary action. We determined that the question of whether the matter should have been reported to the police at the end of their internal investigation was a discretionary one.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not served a breach of condition notice in relation to planning permission on a neighbouring property. The planning conditions he referred to related to the running of a commercial business from the property.

After taking independent planning advice on this case, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The adviser explained that planning enforcement is a discretionary matter for the council and we found no evidence of maladministration in their handling of the case.

Summary

Mr C's property was subject to a statutory notice. When the bill for works was provided, a number of years after the notice was issued and the work undertaken, it was significantly above the estimate. Mr C requested the council provide justifications and itemised bills reflecting the reasons for the cost increases. During correspondence on this matter the council offered to deduct an administration charge, stating that the works were subject to lengthy timescales and poor customer service. Mr C sought clarification of a number of points before accepting the overall offer that this was part of. The council decided that the costs were justified but did not provide the requested justification or itemised bills and withdrew their offer to deduct the administration charge. Mr C complained about the lack of explanation as to the costs for the work and the decision to withdraw the offer to waive the administration fee.

We found that the cost of the project escalated substantially due to a number of emergency notices being served during the works. Whilst many of these costs were deducted from the final account, the overall cost was still significantly higher than the original estimate. We were critical of the council for failing to provide a breakdown of these costs as required by their own guidance. We also concluded that it was inappropriate of the council to withdraw their previous offer to waive the administration fee.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to provide a clear, itemised explanation of the costs for work carried out at his property;
• take steps to ensure they have mechanisms in place to accurately itemise and communicate project costs in line with their guidance;
• reinstate their offer to deduct the administration fee and provide Mr C with a revised cut-off date for acceptance; and
• offer to meet with Mr C to clarify any outstanding points before the cut-off date for accepting their full and final offer.

Summary

Ms C raised a complaint about the educational support offered to her son while he was absent from school and when he returned to school on a phased basis. Ms C was also unhappy with the handling of her complaint.

We noted that the council had apologised for the delay in Ms C's son's return to school, for the failure to send work home while he was absent from school, and for the delay in securing a technical teacher to assist her son. However, we were concerned that we were provided with no evidence of any structured approach to Ms C's son's return to school, any mechanism for monitoring the work he had missed, or a plan in place to ensure he could catch up with the work missed.

We were also concerned that when Ms C's son returned to school, while there was a willingness to offer support, there appeared to be no structured plan in place to monitor how well he was catching up and whether any changes had to be made to the support being offered to him. We were also concerned that, while meetings to discuss Ms C's son continued during his senior phase of education, Ms C remained unclear about the support being proposed for her son. We upheld this part of Ms C's complaint.

We were satisfied that the council had reasonably considered and responded to Ms C's complaint, and we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reflect on this case with a view to introducing a structured approach to ensuring pupils' education is maintained where pupils are unable to attend school and that this is properly recorded; and
• if they have not already done so, implement a learning plan for Ms C's son as a matter of urgency, and confirm in writing to Ms C what support is being offered to her son for his senior phase of education.

Summary

Mr C applied to the council for a Community Care Grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund after moving into a new, unfurnished home. He was initially awarded the majority of items he requested but was refused others, including hallway and bathroom carpets, a washing machine, and a microwave. Dissatisfied with this, he requested a review of the decision and was awarded a washing machine. He then requested a further review stating that he felt that not having a microwave and hallway or bathroom flooring was unacceptable due to his medical circumstances. However, this was refused, prompting Mr C to complain to us.

We found that the council had acted correctly when considering Mr C's medical circumstances at the first and second stages. However, they failed to evidence that they had considered his medical circumstances when assessing his final request for review and we found the level of information recorded at this stage to be poor. They had also failed to follow up on an offer from Mr C to provide supporting evidence from his doctor or social worker, which we found unreasonable in the circumstances. For these reasons, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings highlighted by our investigation; and
• seek advice from Mr C's doctor and social worker regarding the medical circumstances he described and then reconsider his Community Care Grant application.

Summary

Ms C complained that after moving into a new flat she experienced ongoing issues with her bins not being emptied by the council.

It was clear from the evidence that Ms C's bins were not collected on multiple occasions. We were satisfied that the council had taken steps to arrange bin collections when Ms C contacted them and also that they had made sure that the refuse crews and the supervisor were aware of the situation and the need to include Ms C's property on the weekly bin run. However, despite this, there were still occasions when Ms C's bins were not emptied.

The council provided a number of different reasons for the missed bin collections. We found that the reasons supplied by the council were confusing and inconsistent. However, the council later advised that the main issue was the lack of a working key to access the bin store in Ms C's property, which they had resolved. We considered it was unreasonable that the council had taken five months to resolve this and arrange access to the bin store. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint and made two recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their repeated failure to collect her refuse; and
• conduct a review of bin collections at Ms C's property since the bin store key issue was resolved; inform us of the outcome of that review, and what, if any, further action is taken on collections that have been missed.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the lack of action taken by the council when she reported noise and other nuisance or anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a council tenant. Mrs C eventually moved out and rented her property out. Mrs C contacted the council to complain when her tenant began to experience the same anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy. Specifically, when nuisance was reported, we found that the council had visited the property and tried to get statements from the person who reported the nuisance and / or neighbours. Each time they visited they left calling cards. The council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This did not happen because people moved out or did not want the equipment installed. The council also asked people to make statements or to fill in diary records but these were not returned. The council also worked with the tenant who was causing the problem to try to improve the situation, for example by getting the tenant to agree her dog would be kept on a lead when exiting or entering the block and would not foul the drying green area.

When the council did receive the evidence they needed they acted swiftly and issued a warning to the tenant in line with their policy, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that as part of the process for a community buy-out, the council misrepresented information about the valuation of the property to elected members. He also said that officers reneged on an agreement about discounting the sale and unreasonably failed to pass his complaint about these matters to an independent party.

We investigated the complaint and we found that there was no evidence to suggest that the language used about the valuation obtained by Mr C (and the group with whom he was associated) was in any way misleading or misrepresented the facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that an agreement had been given to Mr C about a discounted price upon which the council subsequently reneged. In all, we found that the council dealt appropriately with Mr C's complaints.