SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained about a kitchen upgrade and rewiring work at her property. She said the council did not communicate properly with her and were responsible for delays in carrying out the work. We did not find evidence that the council's communication was at fault. They met with Ms C in advance of the works and gave her a printed information leaflet explaining the tenant's responsibilities as well as the council's. Ms C said she was not able to be at the property on the morning work was due to start, so had left a key with her neighbour and had asked them to look out for the council. There was evidence from the council's van tracking system that the workmen were on site at the time Ms C said she was told to expect them. After waiting for around 45 minutes, the work was called off. Ms C said nobody contacted her. The council said they did not have a mobile phone number for her. We concluded that a better arrangement would have been for Mrs C to tell the council she was leaving a key with her neighbour so that it could have been collected. Although this resulted in two days' delay, we concluded this was not the council's fault as work schedules of the different trades involved had to be rearranged. We found there was a further delay of three working days when water was found under the floor of Mrs C's home. Although this undoubtedly had an impact on Mrs C, we found it was not an unreasonable or excessive delay in the circumstances. Ms C felt the council failed to acknowledge the disruption to her or provide her with assistance. We did not find evidence of this. The council's leaflet clearly acknowledged that the works were intrusive and disruptive, and Ms C received the disruption grant she was entitled to in accordance with the council's policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201501534 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way in which the council’s planning department handled an application for the change of use of office buildings which neighboured their property. They raised concerns that the proper scrutiny measures were not used in assessing the application, that consultations were inadequate and that the department failed to refer the matter to Scottish Ministers. They complained about the adequacy of the council’s assessment of the application in terms of environmental impact and amenity (enjoyment of the property or surroundings). They also considered that the planning report’s reference to a similar previous application was misleading. They complained that other non-planning legislation existed that would prevent the building being used for its intended purpose. They considered that the council should have taken this into account. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. This indicated that the council advertised the application in line with the law and they carried out appropriate consultations. We were advised that the application did not fit the criteria for referral to Scottish Ministers and that the council had no obligation to subject it to further scrutiny measures. We concluded that the council appropriately assessed the application and took all relevant information into account. We considered it reasonable for the report, in outlining the area history, to have referred to a previous application. In terms of whether the operation of the proposed facility would comply with other legislation and standards, we were advised that this was a matter for relevant other authorities and/or the courts, and not the council as planning authority. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the council’s handling of the application and we did not uphold the complaints. We did uphold a complaint about a delay by the council in responding to this complaint, but we noted that they had already acknowledged and apologised fo

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A that a warning letter she received from the council in October about her alleged behaviour was the first such notification she received. Ms A said that although she requested a meeting to discuss the situation, she was not given the opportunity to provide her side of the story. Ms C said that Ms A was being victimised and ignored. We found that there was evidence that Ms A had been warned on occasions before October, and she had referred to this correspondence in her own letters. Ms A had also been given details of the complaints made against her, and been invited to call or meet to discuss them. She did not do so. We found no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to act in accordance with their anti-social behaviour policy, so we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404746 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's communication with them in relation to their concerns about the release of personal information was unreasonable. They said that communication was vague, and failed to address their concerns and the specific points they had raised. We found that there were errors in relation to information displayed on a section of the council's website. However, our investigation found that the council's communications with the couple about the matter had been clear and fully addressed their specific concerns. They had also previously apologised to Mr and Mrs C. Related reading View Decision Report 201402285 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council repeatedly issued incorrect council tax notices and, when his tenant left, failed to apply exemption he was due for a property he let out. He said they did not record payments he made against his council tax liability, for which he had receipts, and that his hand-delivered letters to council offices were not passed on to the council tax department. The council continued to issue late payment charges, final demands and then summary warrants for the amounts they said he was due, despite his letters questioning the amount he owed. Mr C said the council did not respond reasonably to his communications and complaints. During the course of our investigation the council resolved Mr C's concerns about his council tax account. They also accepted that they could have responded to his complaints earlier, in line with their complaints procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201400984 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to consider a councillor's request that his neighbour's planning application be referred to the council's planning committee. The councillor had emailed the council to ask that they let him know when a decision was due to be made on the application so that he could ask for it to be referred to the planning committee. The council had then notified councillors that the application would be decided by a planning officer under delegated authority, unless a request to refer the application to the planning committee was received within seven days. This addressed the councillor's request. Under the council's scheme of delegation, councillors have seven days in which to request referral to the planning committee, otherwise the council issue the decision on the application. The councillor also has to prepare a statement of reasons giving the reasons why the planning committee should determine the application. No request for referral to the planning committee was received within the seven day period and the council then made a decision on the application. We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council had acted in line with their scheme of delegation and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council had ignored a character appraisal for the local area (a description of the architectural and historic character and significance of the area) when they made a decision on the application. We found that the council had taken the character appraisal into account, but had found that this conflicted with national guidance, which carries more weight than local policies. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201401102 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) has a severe form of autism (a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and significant learning disabilities. The council recognised that her current tenancy did not meet her needs, and awarded her additional housing points. They did not, however, offer her the tenancy of a vacant property that Mr C had thought suitable for her. The council said that they had in fact assessed the property to see if it met Miss A's needs, and decided that it would not do so long-term. Mr C complained that this decision was based on false information and that the council had offered no solution to Miss A's housing difficulties. Our investigation looked at the council's housing allocations policy, records of Miss A's needs and housing assessments, internal council correspondence about her housing allocation, and social work case notes. We also asked for more information about the assessment. We found that the council had followed their procedures properly, and that a social worker and a senior occupational therapy practitioner had assessed the property. They had decided that although it would meet Miss A's needs in some ways, overall it was unsuitable and they could not recommend it for her. This was a decision for them to take and as we found they had gone about it properly, we could not question it. Related reading View Decision Report 201305529 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C said that her elderly parents' home had been burgled twice in the last 18 months and she was very unhappy with the council's response to the situation. She said that council staff had misinformed her father by giving various reasons why they would not fit locks to his windows to prevent further burglaries. She was particularly annoyed at the refusal as she said the tenant's handbook advises that all accessible windows should be locked using a key locking mechanism. Our investigation found that the council's repairs and maintenance policy explains that the fitting of additional locks is the tenant's responsibility. This is also reflected in the tenant's guide to repairs and maintenance policy which Ms C's parents would have been given when they took up the tenancy. We were satisfied that section 2.12 of the tenant's handbook, which refers to ensuring all accessible windows are fitted with key-operated locks, was for advice and information only. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304407 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

When Ms C complained to the council about issues to do with her council tax, they told her they would respond within five working days. They in fact replied after about three working weeks and when Ms C complained about this, they said that when they had reviewed her complaint they considered it was too complex for a response at the first stage of their complaints procedure, which has a five-day turnaround. They had, therefore, responded to it at stage two, within the twenty working day timescale for that stage. They accepted that they should have told her about this, and apologised. Ms C submitted further complaints to the council and was dissatisfied with the responses, so brought the matter to us. We upheld Ms C's complaint that the council had not responded within five working days, but made no recommendations as we took the view that they acted appropriately after Ms C complained about this. We found that their responses to her other complaints were reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201304160 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way the council handled an increase in his daughter's home care charges. He said that the council had unreasonably applied a lower earnings threshold than the one approved by council members. Mr C was unhappy that the council had declined to issue a refund as recommended by a complaints review committee (CRC). We found that the council did, in exceptional circumstances, have the discretion to reject recommendations made by a CRC, and concluded that their decision was one that they were entitled to make in the circumstances. Related reading View Decision Report 201204665 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably charged her for a visit to her home for a gas maintenance check, which was legally due. While she accepted that the contractor was initially unable to access her property, she said that she heard nothing more until the council sent her what they said was their third letter. The maintenance check was then carried out but the council applied an administrative fee, as explained in their third letter. Our investigation found that the council are required by law to carry out an annual gas safety inspection and they follow a notification process. This ends in them forcing access to a property if a tenant does not respond. The council said that they had written to Ms C three times to arrange the inspection, and their contractor had left two cards at Ms C’s home on their unsuccessful attempts to carry out the check. The council provided copies of the correspondence and postcards and they all had the correct address details. As they had followed their policy we did not uphold Ms C's complaint, as the council were entitled to charge the fee. Related reading View Decision Report 201204621 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about school admission arrangements. He said that the council had failed to acknowledge the disruption caused by a change to established admission arrangements, failed to consult with directly affected families or other relevant parties about the changes; and had relied on flawed catchment map evidence. He said that the council had previously admitted children from neighbouring houses to a particular school but that when he applied for a place there for his child, he was told that his home was in fact in the catchment area for another school. Mr C claimed that the previous admissions constituted an 'arrangement' as defined by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Act), and that by altering it, the council were required to consult on it, or to recognise that Mr C's child should have been granted a place. Defining whether or not the actions of the council constituted an admission arrangement as defined by the Act is a role that can only be performed by a court of law. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that children from Mr C's area had in fact previously been allocated there in error, and that Mr C's home had correctly been identified as in the catchment area for a different school. Mr C also complained that the council had been relying on faulty catchment area maps, and that they could not be certain that his property was not in the catchment area for the school of his choice. In support of this argument he said that the original maps defining catchment areas were damaged. We did not uphold this complaint, after visiting the council and viewing the maps showing catchment areas. We confirmed that the relevant maps did not show Mr A's property to be in the catchment area for his preferred school. Related reading View Decision Report 201203390 as a PDF (11.47 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for a visit to his home about a gas maintenance check. The check on Mr C's home was due, but the council said he had missed the first appointment. Mr C told us that he was at home that day, and that the contractor had not arrived. He said that he received no further correspondence from the council until a contractor’s card was put through his door. He said that the council then attended his property and, although they were granted access by a relative who was there, they ‘capped’ Mr C’s gas and charged an administrative fee. Mr C was unhappy that they had done so. Our investigation found that the council are required by law to carry out an annual gas safety inspection, and that there are set periods of notice that they need to give tenants about this. There are also steps they can take to gain access if a tenant does not respond. The council had sent three letters to Mr C trying to arrange the inspection, and left two cards at his home when their contractor could not gain access. They had his correct address details on record, had met all the periods of notice they were required to give him about this, and had followed their policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had done nothing wrong and were entitled to charge the administration fee. Related reading View Decision Report 201203652 as a PDF (11.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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 wit

Mr C complained about information provided to him about planning permission in 2000 and 2007/8, lack of information sharing between the planning and building control departments, and the handling of his enquiries about these matters in 2010. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a planning adviser, found that the information provided by the planning and building control departments had been accurate and complete and was not misleading. It had been made clear to Mr C and the architect who had acted as his agent that the grant of planning permission did not negate the need to apply for a building warrant and vice versa. We also found that the level of information sharing and co-operation between the two departments was similar to that in most if not all councils in Scotland. This also complied with the guidance offered by the Scottish Government via the Building Standards Division - Procedural Handbook. We did not uphold these complaints. We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaint about delay. We found that there were delays in dealing with his queries when he came to sell his property in 2009-10. Mr C had to apply for a letter of comfort (a letter that confirms that any work done on a property without planning permission and/or a building warrant has been done to an acceptable standard). The council admitted that due to staffing difficulties in 2010 there were unacceptable delays in the processing and issuing such letters. They apologised to Mr C for this in their response to his complaint in January 2012, and took action to ensure that the situation was not repeated. They are also currently reviewing their systems in preparation for the implementation of the Building Standards Framework developed by the Scottish Government and due to be implemented in October 2012.

Mr C and his partner (Ms D) complained that the council removed items from the garden of their council house after the end of their tenancy. The couple claimed that the council did this despite having agreed beforehand that they could collect the items later. They also complained that the council charged them for clearing these items as well as for the removal of kitchen equipment which they said they were told they could leave. We found that the council's policies were clear, and confirmed that tenants must remove all property, including kitchen equipment such as that left by Mr C and Ms D, when they give up a tenancy. They also said that this was explained to Mr C and Ms D, and provided evidence that the couple had signed an 'end of tenancy' form saying they understood this. We did not uphold Mr C and Ms D's complaint as we found insufficient evidence to conclude that the council told them that they could leave items behind to be collected later. Related reading View Decision Report 201105002 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council inappropriately issued a completion certificate in 1992 for building works carried out at a property he bought some years later. Mr C said the council should not have issued a completion certificate because the work 'as built' differed in several key aspects from the plans which had originally been warranted by the council. Mr C also complained that the council had delayed unreasonably in providing information he had requested. We found that the building control officer was aware of changes (to the proposed layout and the door and window configuration) when the completion certificate was issued. We concluded that it was for the officer to decide whether the changes meant that a reapplication for warrant was necessary or if an amended drawing or annotation of the existing drawing would be sufficient. There was no evidence that the officer's professional judgement had been flawed, and we did not uphold this complaint. We upheld the complaint about information, as the council had already accepted that there were administrative errors in the handling of Mr C’s request for archived drawings, which had caused delay. Related reading View Decision Report 201200433 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had initially complained to us about a financial assessment carried out on a woman who had gone into care. We laid a report before parliament about that complaint in December 2010. We recommended that the council look at a document that they had not previously seen, and revisit their decision with a view to giving Mr C a full explanation of the reasons why the social work complaints review committee (CRC) had rejected his arguments. As a result of our report the CRC re-convened to consider the recommendations. They considered that the document was sufficiently important for them to change their previous decision. Their recommendation was then put to the council's social work appeals sub committee. After hearing Mr C and a legal adviser, the sub committee took the view that there were exceptional circumstances in this case and that they should reject the CRC's recommendation. The sub committee minuted in detail their reasons for this. We did not uphold Mr C's new complaint that the council failed to provide a full and adequate explanation for the initial CRC decision. The fact that the CRC had taken a fresh look at the matter and changed their decision meant that the council did not then need to provide reasons for the earlier decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201102766 as a PDF (16.79 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The complainant, Mr C, complained that the council denied him sufficient opportunities to arrange a time when he could allow the council's gas engineers access to carry out a statutory gas safety inspection. We reviewed the procedures the council had in place in relation to the arrangements of appointments for gas safety checks and also reviewed what actually happened in this case. From our review it was apparent that the council and their contractors contacted Mr C three times by letter and left two postcards requesting that he contact them to make arrangements for access. As Mr C did not do so, the council wrote to advise that they had no choice but to take steps to force entry and to apply an administration fee. As the council acted in accordance with their procedures, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102709 as a PDF (13.66 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was dissatisfied with the council’s response to a complaint he raised with them about the time taken to reach a decision on planning applications. He complained that the council did not make clear whether his complaint had been upheld and did not provide reassurance that steps had been taken to ensure there would be no repetition of the situation. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, the council made clear in their responses to this office that the complaints had been upheld and that they had taken steps to ensure the situation would not recur, and so we did not make any recommendations to the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201102095 as a PDF (13.53 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the former private let of a property in the council's area, and about the council's actions in respect of her former landlord, a serving councillor. Ms C alleged that the council unreasonably granted landlord registration to her landlord during an investigation into the presence of carbon monoxide in the property owned by him and failed to ensure that the landlord complied with his landlord registration responsibilities. Our investigation found that the landlord had already been registered but had not told the council about a change in management responsibilities for the property tenanted by Ms C and another property. That was rectified by a meeting called swiftly by officials when the matter was brought to their attention, where the landlord was reminded of his responsibilities. In light of the action taken by the council, we did not uphold either complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201004597 as a PDF (13.73 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly calculate his council tax and his water and sewerage charges. In addition, he complained that they issued numerous bills, which he considered were incorrect, failed to advise him of his right to appeal his charges, refused to clarify what he owed and improperly pursued him for outstanding monies. We examined the background to the council tax and water and sewerage charges to which Mr C was liable and also reviewed the discounts and benefits to which he was entitled. We also examined the correspondence sent to him by the council. From our examination of the case it was clear that the council had correctly calculated his council tax and his water and sewerage charges and had explained very clearly, on a number of occasions, the reasons for their calculations. For this reason we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201004586 as a PDF (13.67 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018