SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr and Mrs A, who are private landlords, leased properties to tenants introduced to them by the council's social work department. They said that at the end of these leases, their properties were in a state of disrepair. Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A that the council had made a verbal agreement that, when recommending tenants, the council would reinstate the properties to their pre-letting condition when the tenancies ended. He also complained that the council had withheld information about the tenants and during the tenancies, and had failed to supervise the tenants. While we recognised that Mr C said that a verbal commitment had been given in relation to the tenants, our investigation found no evidence that any commitment had been given to supervise or to agree to reinstate the properties at the end of the tenancies. In addition we found no evidence that the council had withheld information that Mr and Mrs A were entitled to see. Related reading View Decision Report 201200509 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the council about unauthorised development activity at a property close to his. A retrospective planning application was submitted and recommended for approval, but was refused by the planning committee. Mr C complained to the council about various aspects of their handling of these matters, and when he was dissatisfied with the response he received he complained to us. We decided that most of his complaints were not matters we could consider as they related to his unhappiness with the council's actions rather than being complaints of maladministration or service failure (ie complaints that the council had handled this wrongly). We did consider his complaint that the council's complaints handling was unreasonable because the chief executive did not provide specific evidence to support his statements about meetings held or the consideration given to the matter. We did not, however, uphold this, as we found that the chief executive responded directly to Mr C's complaints and gave reasons for his decisions, which we considered reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201305772 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs and Ms C told us that they registered for the council’s downsizing incentive scheme when it was first introduced, as they no longer needed a three bedroom house. (This was a scheme where tenants were offered a cash payment if they moved to a smaller house.) When they were offered their current property in June 2013 they expected to receive a payment and were shocked to be told that the scheme had ended. An article later appeared in the local press referring to the scheme ‘continuing’ because it had been a success. Mrs and Ms C complained to the council. They said they felt penalised and discriminated against because they moved during a period when the council said the scheme was not in place. Mrs and Ms C said that had they known that it was to be continued later they could have made a more informed decision about moving house. In reply, the council said that the scheme ended on 31 March 2013 as there was no new money to keep it going. However, new funding later became available and officers decided to seek approval to introduce a new scheme. This was approved in September 2013 and the scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013. Mrs and Ms C then complained to us that the council unreasonably refused to make them a downsizing incentive payment when they moved, and did not reply to their correspondence within the published time limits for doing so. When we investigated, the council told us that information about the scheme was available on the internet and on posters in council offices. Funding was made available for it on an annual basis, and it was suspended from 31 March 2013 because it could not be funded again at that time. We did not find any service failure or maladministration in the council's decision to suspend the scheme. This was a decision that they were entitled to make and as the scheme was suspended at the time Mrs and Ms C took up the new tenancy, the council’s decision not to make an incentive award was correct. We understood, however,

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of two planning applications. He said that the planning report contained inaccuracies and had not dealt with issues of window distances, subdivision of land and loss of amenity. He also said that archaeological and tree survey requirements were not undertaken. Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of enforcement matters at the site. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council's actions were reasonable and they had dealt with the applications properly. We were also satisfied that the council's position that there were no archaeological issues in this case was reasonable and we found no evidence of fault in relation to the council's decision that there was no need for a tree survey. Finally, we were satisfied that the action the council took in dealing with the enforcement matters raised by Mr C was reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201104506 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is a planning consultant, submitted a complaint on behalf of her client (Mrs A). In 2008, Mrs A had obtained planning consent for an extension to her cottage, but did not take this forward. In May 2010, she placed a large residential caravan with wooden decking beside the cottage. The caravan was connected to Mrs A's electricity, water and sewerage facilities and Mrs A’s mother moved into it. A neighbour objected to this, and a council enforcement officer investigated. They invited Mrs A to apply for retrospective planning consent for the caravan. When she did so, however, the committee who considered her application refused permission, and the council served an enforcement notice for the caravan to be removed. Mrs A appealed this to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The appeal was unsuccessful but after Mrs A succeeded in challenging this at the Court of Session, DPEA again considered the matter. However, they again dismissed the appeals, giving Mrs A six months to comply with the enforcement notice. Ms C made four complaints to us. She said the council had been unreasonable in refusing her offer to meet with them and engage in pre-application discussions, or to address her concerns about the relevance of a certificate of lawfulness of a proposed use or development. Ms C was also unhappy that the council delayed in handling her complaints. We upheld only one of her complaints, however, about complaints handling. This was because we found that the council in general acted appropriately in the action they took, and were entitled to make the decisions they had made.

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201104512 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C asked the council to change the type of heating in her house from electric to gas. When they said they would not do this, she complained that this was unfair because council tenants with solid fuel heating have a choice of heating type. Miss C said that the council had failed to properly investigate the inefficiencies in her heating system, which she said caused discomfort to her family and resulted in high heating bills, and that it was unreasonable to refuse her request when there was no cost efficient electric alternative. As a result of our investigation, the council reviewed their original assessment of Miss C's property and found that it did require to be brought up to the 2015 Scottish Housing Quality Standards. The council proposed to carry out a further assessment using new software, to provide the most up-to-date readings, and shortly after that to provide Miss C with suitable options to bring her house up to standard. As the action taken by the council would result in the upgrading of the heating system, and was a positive step towards achieving what Miss C wanted in bringing her complaint to us, we decided that there was no need to continue investigating the matter, and closed her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102253 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a landlord of property in a tenement building. In September 2008, the council were told that a chimney on the building was a danger to the public. Officers from the council's building standards department attended and say they put business cards through the letter boxes of the affected properties. Sixteen days later, a contractor carried out repair work to the chimney on behalf of the council. Mr C, however, said the first time he became aware of the repairs was when the council wrote to him about payment in August 2010. We did not uphold some of Mr C's complaints. He complained that the council failed to contact him in a proper manner when they identified that repair works were required. He said that this meant he and the other owners were not given the opportunity to carry out the repairs themselves. We found, however, that the council, as the local authority, are entitled to take decisions about dealing with a dangerous building in terms of the relevant legislation. It was not in dispute that the work had been carried out nor had we seen evidence that it was unnecessary. The legislation does not set out how owners are to be contacted in such a situation. We saw no evidence to dispute the council's assertion that posting cards through the letterboxes of the affected properties is a tried and tested method that worked in the past. We noted too that the council had reviewed their procedures, and made changes in the way the council notify owners/occupiers when a building is considered to be dangerous. Mr C also said that the work was unnecessarily carried out on a Sunday incurring extra costs. The council told us that it was done then because a hydraulic platform had to be used and to minimise disruption to traffic on the street, which we considered reasonable. Mr C also complained that the council's decision that the repair work was required immediately was unreasonable given that it took them 16 days to do it. In our view, it did not follow that, because th