SPSO Individual Decisions

Two separate neighbours of Mr C developed areas of public amenity adjoining his property without planning permission. The council served enforcement notices for the removal of this development. The neighbours complied with some parts of the enforcement notices but not others. Mr C raised this with the council. The council advised that they had considered the situation but decided that the breaches of planning control that the enforcement notices had been intended to target had been satisfactorily resolved and, therefore, would not take further action. Mr C was dissatisfied with this decision and complained to the council who advised that the pursuit of enforcement action is a discretionary decision of the council and they were satisfied it had been properly arrived at. Mr C was dissatisfied with this response and raised his complaint with this office. We decided that, as the decision to take enforcement action is at the discretion of the council, and they had advised Mr C why they had decided not to take action in this case, there was no evidence of the maladministration or service failure that Mr C had alleged and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100152 as a PDF (14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that in 2007, contractors working for the council had, without warning removed a wooden fence and then a large section of his mother's hedge and hurdle fence that divided her property with her neighbour's property. Thereafter the contractors began to work on a joint drain, access to which was a manhole-type cover. Mr C stated the drain cover was re-sited without consultation and encroached into his mother's garden. In his view, the new location of the manhole is inappropriate as it is sited under his mother's hedge, which would need to be removed to provide access. We did not uphold Mr C’s allegation that the council inappropriately moved the manhole and did so without consultation. We also did not uphold his complaint that the new location of the manhole is inappropriate. We noted that before Mr C brought the complaint to us the council had apologised to him and his mother for the initial event that occurred in 2007 and had taken steps to ensure such incidents would not recur. Related reading View Decision Report 201004322 as a PDF (14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained of shortcomings in the handling of their complaint at various stages of the council's complaints procedure. Their complaint was under investigation by the council and Mr and Mrs C complained that they had been directed to our office to pursue the matter. We made enquiries to the council, who agreed to include Mr and Mrs C's complaint in their ongoing investigation, and so we closed the file. Related reading View Decision Report 201100869 as a PDF (13.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was dissatisfied with an unannounced visit to her home by a surveyor in response to a complaint that unauthorised work had been carried out in her home. Ms C was concerned that the council had not written to her in advance of the visit and that the officer did not have details about her or the alleged works, prior to the visit. The council apologised to Ms C that she had found the visit unsettling but explained the reason for the visit. They suggested that another surveyor could carry out the inspection that was necessary in terms of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and suggested that Ms C contact them with a time and date that was suitable. When we investigated, the council confirmed that they had received a complaint about alleged unauthorised works and that, in such circumstances, they had a statutory obligation to ensure any unauthorised works or conversion that may have taken place had been carried out in accordance with Building Regulations. The council explained that Building Standards operational practice was to visit premises where there are alleged unauthorised works in an informal matter with a view to assisting owners to comply with relevant legislation without the need to resort to formal enforcement action, in line with the Government's Enforcement Concordat. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201003620 as a PDF (14.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C has a daughter who started primary three of school in August 2010. Mr C was concerned that his daughter's handwriting had deteriorated and sought a meeting with the head teacher. He was not happy with the outcome of that meeting and three other incidents involving his daughter's class teacher. He decided to remove his child from that primary school at the same time as making a complaint. He complained to us after completing the council's complaints procedure. He was informed that we were precluded by paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 of the SPSO Act 2002 from looking into the giving of instruction or conduct, curriculum and discipline in any educational establishment under the management of an education authority. We considered three complaints from Mr C about the handling of his complaint by Education Services, and upheld one complaint about a delay in escalating the complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's actions in relation to the collection of his council tax. He was unhappy that sheriff's officers contacted him about collecting a surcharge that was the subject of a summary warrant. Although the council said they had sent all the relevant correspondence about this to his address, Mr C said he had not received any of it. He felt that such information should have been sent by recorded delivery. We found that there was no requirement for the council to do this, and noted that the sheriff who signed the warrant had accepted that posting the letters to Mr C was adequate. As our investigation indicated that the council had followed the appropriate process, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100359 as a PDF (13.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the council's stair cleaning service which is compulsory for tenants where 50 percent or more of the houses are owned by the council. She said that the charge impacts disproportionately on low paid workers like her brother, who considers it unfair. The complaints we investigated were that the cost of the council’s compulsory charges for stair cleaning were not justified, and that the lack of choice, as a council tenant, about whether to participate in the scheme was unfair. The council provided a reasonable explanation of how the charge was calculated. They also explained that they had decided to make it compulsory in order to benefit the 80 percent of their tenants who were on housing benefit. These were discretionary decisions that the council were entitled to make and we cannot question them, despite the disproportionate impact on Ms C's brother. Related reading View Decision Report 201003024 as a PDF (13.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the the council unreasonably pursued him for water and sewerage charges for 2008/09 and 2009/10 in respect of his current home. He considered the council's pursuit of those charges to be unreasonable because he was told verbally in February 2010 that he had no outstanding debts to the council, and because the council did not send information or demands for these payments to him at his current address until October 2010. In fact they had sent these documents to the wrong address. As a result of our enquiries the council reconsidered the matter and decided to write off the charges for the two years in question. As Mr C was satisfied with this, the complaint was resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201004238 as a PDF (13.61 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a flat in a tenement block in central Edinburgh which he lets out. In March and September 2008 the council served two statutory repairs notices on owners of the block under section 24(1) of The City of Edinburgh District Council Confirmation Order Act 1991. Mr C was unaware of the notices until about a week before the works were due to start. He complained that the council failed to serve notice on him of the repairs. Our investigation established that this was the case and that in drawing down the list of owners to be served, Mr C's flat was wrongly numbered. Related reading View Decision Report 201003470 as a PDF (18.47 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

As part of the Edinburgh Trams project, the City of Edinburgh Council have carried out works to alter the road network in some areas of Edinburgh City Centre. The changes to the road network to support the new tram infrastructure were carried out using a series of public consultations in conjunction with Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). The council decided to relocate the disabled parking bays in Frederick Street from near Princes Street to near George Street as part of this programme. Mrs C raised a number of specific issues about this change. These included the accessibility of the new location, the process of consultation (which she felt did not include disability groups or interaction with the blue badge scheme), and an assurance she said the council had given to reverse the change when possible. Mrs C was also unhappy with the reasons given to support the change and said that the changes breached her human rights and the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act. Our investigation looked at the regulations that councils must follow when applying for TROs and at guidance issued by the Disability Rights Commission and the Scottish Government. As changes to road management can only be made as part of the TRO process, our investigation was restricted to considering whether the process had been followed out appropriately. During the investigation, we found that the council had complied with the guidance and procedures. This included appropriate consultation with disability groups and compliance with the appropriate guidance. There was no link between the blue badge scheme and the positioning of disabled spaces that the council needed to consider and the reasons the council gave were reasonable. We found no evidence that the council had given a specific assurance that the change would be reversed. While we did not uphold any aspect of the complaint, we accepted that Mrs C had been affected by the change. We noted that there would likely be a further opportunity for

Miss C was unhappy about the noise she could hear from her next-door neighbour's kitchen. She complained to the council, who sent an officer to investigate. She then complained to us that the council had not properly investigated her concerns. She felt that the council official who investigated was not in the property long enough to establish the cause of the noise transmission. It is not for us to investigate the issue of the noise transmission itself but simply to see whether the council acted correctly in investigating the matter. When we investigated we found that the council officer had attended on a number of occasions but had never witnessed noise nuisance. They had provided advice on what Miss C should do in future if there was a problem. The council’s buildings standards section also investigated a further complaint from Miss C about unauthorised structural works to the property that she believed were affecting noise levels, but found that no such work had taken place. We recognised that Miss C as an individual found the noise particularly distressing. However, we found that the council had properly carried out their duty to investigate the matters she had raised. Related reading View Decision Report 201004604 as a PDF (13.9 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a property in a block of flats where the council manage the communal upkeep. He complained to the council about nine issues relating to the amounts the council charged him for managing the property and for shared costs. He was dissatisfied with their replies and complained to us that the council failed to reasonably handle his complaints. We found that he had not made two of the complaints directly to the council. We could not look at those at all, as we need them to have gone through that process first. We also could not consider the detail of the issues complained about as the SPSO Act prevents us from considering matters of a commercial or contractual nature, or the setting of service charges. We could, however, look at how the council handled Mr C’s complaints. When we did so, we were satisfied that, although Mr C was unhappy with the outcome of the complaints, the council had dealt with them appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201004145 as a PDF (13.8 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018