Local Government

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.

Summary

Ms C complained that following an incident involving another pupil, the school failed to put in support for her son, particularly after the other pupil returned to the school following an exclusion. She was also unhappy with the communication from the school following the incident and, in particular, what she felt was the school's failure to listen to her son's concerns.

We could not comment on whether or not the excluded pupil should return to school as this was a disciplinary matter which fell outwith our jurisdiction. We did find, however, that the school had communicated reasonably with Ms C and her family, from the time of the incident, and had put measures in place to support Ms C's son, in terms of minimising the risk of both pupils meeting, through support from staff and through the offer of counselling.

As a result of the actions taken by the school, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to ensure that the school attended by her daughter (Miss A) had an anti-bullying policy in place. She also complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action in response to the bullying of Miss A at this school.

We upheld Miss C's complaint about the anti-bullying policy. Although the council's overarching policy was thorough, we found that the school did not have its own policy in place that sufficiently met the requirements of the council's policy.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint about the council's action in relation to reports of Miss A's bullying. We found that overall the council had taken significant action in line with the requirements of their policy to address the concerns raised and we found this to be reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C and Miss A for the failings identified in this case; and
• reflect on the failings identified and advise us of the actions they will take to address these.

Summary

Miss C complained on behalf of her local residents' organisation. Her complaint concerned various issues relating to the council's waste services, including the bin crew failing to empty bins on designated days, not cleaning or picking up overspill in bin stores, not reporting tipped items to relevant services, long delays in response times for faulty bin repairs, and the bin crew not returning bins to stores after emptying them.

The council acknowledged that there had been failings in their refuse collection services, and provided evidence to show that they were taking steps to improve matters. They have also appointed a Locality Waste and Cleansing Officer.

There had also been unreasonable delays in the council responding to requests for bin repair or replacement, and unreasonable delays in responding to Miss C's complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• report back to us, confirming the progress that has been made in respect of the measures set out by the Locality Waste and Cleansing Officer; and
• apologise to Miss C for the delays in responding to her requests for bin repair or replacement.

Summary

A mutual boundary wall between Ms C's property and another property was the subject of a statutory repair notice issued by the council. The notice required the wall to be demolished and re-built.

No action was taken until two years later, when the council notified Ms C and other owners that they had 14 days to indicate whether they were undertaking the work to the wall before the council would do so. Ms C said that despite informing the council that she and the other owners would do so, the council did not adhere to the timeline and instead instructed their own contractor to carry out the work. The council said they were unable to trace any record of contact from Ms C about this. Given the conflicting evidence and the period of time that had elapsed, we were unable to conclude what had occurred and to conclude definitively when the work began. We also considered it was the responsibility of Ms C and the other owners to have ensured that the council knew that she and the other owners intended carrying out the work to the wall. Therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

However, we considered that certain aspects of the council's administration of the notice in relation to the appointment of the contractor, how the share of the costs of the work had been apportioned and a delay in providing Ms C with a copy of the final account was unsatisfactory and had caused her to reasonably question the cost of the work charged to her. On balance we therefore upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint and recommended that the council apologise to her. However, we were unable to conclude that the final account for the work was incorrect.

In reaching our decision, we took into account that an independent resolution complaints panel review had concluded that the invoiced account was correct and that owners had only been invoiced for the amounts they were liable for.

Ms C also complained that she had not received a satisfactory response from the council to her enquiries and concerns in relation to the notice. We found that there was a lack of evidence about what occurred prior to a certain point. However, we considered the action taken by the council thereafter, taking account of the available evidence, to have been reasonable and so we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in the administration of the notice.