SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained that the council had failed to respond to complaints about anti-social behaviour and repairs over many years. She also complained that the council had not handled her complaint reasonably. We found that the council had failed to act on reports of disrepair over a four year period. We also found that the council's complaint investigation had not acknowledged this, or apologised for any failings. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Mr and Mrs C were kinship carers for Child A. Child A was removed from Mr and Mrs C's care and placed in foster care. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council failed to provide the appropriate support to them as kinship carers. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that, while at times the level of support provided was reasonable, there were occasions when the council's actions were unreasonable. In particular, we found that: • Child A was not seen alone by their supervising social worker every four weeks, contrary to the council's own standards. • The council failed to carry out home visits to Mr and Mrs C on two occasions. • The council did not provide a reasonable level of support to Mr and Mrs C to ensure they had the necessary skills to meet Child A's needs, given the possible impact of Child A's experiences and the behavioural issues that could arise. • The council instructed an external service to provide Child A with support. It was not clear from the records when the support of this service started and ended for Child A or what work the service was doing with Child A. • A planning meeting was not carried out within 72 hours of Child A being placed with Mr and Mrs C and no kinship care assessment was completed for Mr and Mrs C, contrary to the council's own guidance and the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009. • Child A's social work notes were often recorded much later than set out by the Council's policy which states that they should be recorded within five days of the event. In addition, we found that the handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint was unreasonable. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C complained about delays in the council's handling of a breach of planning consent he first reported to them some years ago, but which remained unresolved until recently. The breach involved a complex engineering matter, which the council told him was the cause of the delay, as significant research had been required on the part of the applicant and their architects to identify a workable solution. Regardless, Mr C believed that the timescales involved were unreasonable and questioned whether the council had taken sufficient steps to progress enforcement action. We took independent advice from a planning professional. We considered that the informal approach taken by the council and the decisions made at each stage to allow informal negotiations were reasonable. However, we did not consider that the council had taken reasonable steps to follow up on proposed action by the applicants at a number of key stages, resulting in months long delays with no apparent progress on several occasions. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to appropriately handle a complaint he had made about the way in which they had investigated adult protection concerns he raised regarding his mother. The council admitted that they did not follow the usual complaints process in investigating Mr C's complaint. They said that Mr C made multiple complaints and continued to raise his dissatisfaction in correspondence. The council decided to deal with all of the issues raised in a single case review. After the first case review was complete the council agreed to a second case review. Ultimately, we decided that the process offered by the council was equivalent to the complaints process, and although there was some confusion in respect of communication, ultimately Mr C got the kind of response he would have had the council's complaints procedure been followed. The complaint had been considered in the usual way by a complaint review committee, as was Mr C's right under the social work complaints process at the time. We did not uphold the complaint, however, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the confused communication regarding the handling of the complaint.

Miss C owns a property in a block of four. Some of the other properties in the block were believed to be owned by the council. Miss C complained that work undertaken on her property was not in line with the agreed mandate and that the council failed to provide her with appropriate information in relation to the works. The council's Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners procedure provides information on the steps to be followed when a repair has been identified as shared with the owner of a private property. The council contacted all owners in Miss C's block giving a quote to paint the exterior of the property. The letter said that it was a notification of shared repair, and it enclosed a mandate which, when signed, indicated agreement to the council taking the lead on the repair. The council ultimately painted the exterior of Miss C's property, but none of the others in her block as the other occupiers had not agreed to the work being carried out. Miss C complained to the council that she only agreed to the work being carried out because she understood that all of the properties in the block were going to be painted. She said that if she had been made aware that the work was not going to be carried out on the whole block, she would not have signed the mandate, and that at no time had she agreed to being the only property to be painted. The council said that the mandate signed by Miss C was not conditional on the agreement of other owners in the block. We found that the work carried out was not in line with the original mandate, as the original mandate had confirmed Miss C's agreement to shared repairs being carried out. We considered that, when it became clear that the other owners were not going ahead with the work, the council should have checked whether Miss C still wanted to go ahead. During the course of our investigation, it became clear that in fact none of the properties in Miss C's block were owned by the council. Therefore, the council were not in a po

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mrs A) that the council wrongly reported Mrs A to the Office of Public Guardian (OPG). Mrs A has power of attorney for her mother and contacted the council after her father died, to request a financial re-assessment for her mother. Mrs A completed a financial assessment form and recorded that her mother had had a property which she sold. The council requested information regarding the net proceeds of the property sale on a number of occasions, however, Mrs A failed to provide this information. After a number of attempts to obtain the information, the council reported an adult protection concern to social work which resulted in a referral to the OPG. Mr C believes the council acted unreasonably and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser confirmed that the council have a duty to raise an adult protection concern and to contact the OPG if the financial management of the adult’s capital is unknown. Therefore, we did not consider the council wrongly reported Mrs A to the OPG and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201706906 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council on behalf of her sister-in-law (Mrs A). Mrs C and Mrs A previously lived together in a private let along with their respective husbands and six children between them. Mrs C also provided care for Mrs A. After receiving a notice to quit from their landlord, Mrs A presented as homeless and asked for both family units to be rehoused together. The council advised that they were not able to provide temporary accommodation large enough and would struggle to provide permanent accommodation if they were rehoused together. After carrying out further assessment, including an occupational therapy assessment, the council insisted that Mrs C and Mrs A would have to submit two separate homeless applications. Mrs C complained that they were not able to submit a single homeless application. In addition to this, she complained about the staff attitude and the service they had received from the council. After reviewing the council's records and the relevant legislation and guidance, we decided that it was reasonable for the council to insist on two separate homeless applications. We considered this to be reasonable as the families had only started living together relatively recently and that, in the council's opinion, there was no clear medical or social care evidence indicating that the families could not live apart. We also found that being rehoused together may result in both families having to stay in temporary accommodation for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In regards to the service received, we found that one record of phone contact used inappropriate wording when describing Mrs C's actions. We highlighted to the council the importance of using neutral, non-subjective language in their records. However, we concluded that there was not enough independent, verifiable evidence to suggest that the council's service was inappropriate or unreasonable. It was also noted that the

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to ensure that her new bathroom was installed correctly as she had to report a number of leaks in the months following the installation. Ms C said that she had to report a leak on a number of occasions, and that the council and their contractor unreasonably delayed in establishing who was responsible for the leak, which led to her being left without adequate facilities for a lengthy period of time. Ms C also complained that the council delayed in completing the repairs. The council was unable to provide accurate records in response to our investigation. It was difficult to establish exactly what happened and the reasons for the delay. We found that Ms C was left to chase up both the contractor and the council to progress the repairs and we did not find this to be acceptable. In response to our investigation, the council explained that the bathroom installation was signed off as per their normal procedures and that the leak was not related to the installation as it was not reported until one month later. We accepted that the council did ensure the bathroom was installed correctly and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we found that the council did not provide an adequate explanation for what happened. There did not appear to be a coordinated response from the council and Ms C was left with a leaking toilet for an unacceptable period of time. The council failed to provide evidence of a thorough investigation into Ms C's complaint. We concluded that the council unreasonably delayed in establishing who was responsible for the leak and in completing the repairs. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action when a property built on the same development as his property was not in compliance with the planning permission which had been granted, in that it did not provide a reasonable turning area for the development. The council responded to Mr C's complaint and said that the turning area had been assessed since the development had been completed and was determined to be suitable for purpose, despite the fact that it does not fully reflect what was shown on the plans. The council said that the turning area is suitable as it is wider than was originally provided for in the layout plans. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council's approach to considering a turning area when granting the planning permission was reasonable and correct. We also found that, with regards to enforcement action, this is a discretionary matter for the council. We concluded that the council had reasonably investigated and assessed Mr C's complaints about the suitability of the turning area. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201609335 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to process his high hedge application reasonably. Mr C applied for a high hedge notice under the High Hedge (Scotland) Act 2013. His application related to trees forming a hedge along his boundary with a neighbouring property. The council assessed the trees and advised Mr C that they would recommend reducing the hedge at a council committee meeting in approximately two months' time. In the interim, Mr C's neighbour carried out selective pruning. Subsequently, the council re-assessed the trees and decided that they did not have an adverse impact on Mr C's property. Therefore, they decided that no action was required. Mr C raised concerns about the measurements taken in the case, delays in the handling of the case, and the decision to re-assess the trees. The council acknowledged that there were some failings in the case, including in the accuracy of some measurements, and recognised that a delay had occurred. However, the council considered the re-assessment of the trees was necessary, and that there was no further action they could take to address the trees. After obtaining independent planning advice, we upheld Mr C's complaint. Regarding re-assessment of the trees, we considered it was not unreasonable for the council to re-assess. However, we did find that there was a delay in the council handling the case and that there were some inaccuracies in the measurements that were taken. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the failings in the handling of the case had largely been identified by the council and we found that they had subsequently taken remedial action. As such, we did not consider that further action from the council was necessary and we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201507891 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a two-storey extension, which had been submitted by his next door neighbour. Neighbour notifications had not been sent out, and Mr C only found out about the application after planning permission had been granted. Mr C complained that a council case officer had failed to identify significant visual intrusion into his property from a balcony on the extension. The report of handling made no mention of the balcony, and the case officer had not retained any calculations on the file. The council provided new calculations, which they said confirmed that the proposal was acceptable. However, in view of shortcomings in the way the application was handled, they agreed to contact the developer to request that the height of a privacy screen at the end of the balcony next to Mr C's property was increased, which was agreed and approved. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. Although the council had drawn up new diagrams and calculations since Mr C complained to them, the adviser commented that their lack of detailed annotation was such that the adviser was unable to interpret them, so could not say whether the council's conclusion that the proposal was acceptable was reasonable. The adviser did not consider that the council had provided sufficient reason to justify the omission of the balcony from the report of handling, noting that the absence of the balcony was clearly significant in this case. Although the report of handling gave some consideration to visual intrusion from the extension into Mr C's property, we considered the council's failure to consider the impact of the balcony in the report to be an unacceptable oversight. We therefore upheld this complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's response to his complaint. He was dissatisfied that they had failed to address his concern about visual intrusion into his property through side windows, which had been omitted from

Mr C, an advocacy and support worker, complained to us on behalf of his client (Ms A). Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to respond to Ms A's complaints of anti-social behaviour. He also complained that the council failed to assess Ms A's housing application in line with their obligations. We found that the council had responded appropriately to Ms A's complaints about anti-social behaviour, and that their responses to her complaints were in accordance with their policy. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Regarding the housing application, Ms A was unhappy with the housing award that the council had given her and felt that she qualified for a different award. Mr C wrote to the council on Ms A's behalf to appeal the outcome of the award. In this letter, Mr C provided detailed evidence from Ms A which Ms A considered to be proof that she met the criteria for a different housing award. The council treated Mr C's letter as a complaint and provided a stage two complaints response. We found that the council had incorrectly treated Mr C's letter as a complaint, rather than an appeal against Ms A's housing application. Whilst Mr C had addressed his letter to the incorrect recipient at the council, we found that the council had not communicated clearly with Ms A or Mr C, which had led to confusion. We found that the council did consider a later appeal submitted by Ms A, however at this time they did not take into account the contents of Mr C's earlier letter. Given that the council had not considered all of the relevant information with respect to the appeal, we upheld Mr C's complaint about Ms A's housing application.

Mr C made a number of complaints to us about the council's handling of planning conditions for a quarry near his home. He complained that planning officers had discharged conditions without referring them to the council's planning committee. We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaints. We found that, although the council's scheme of delegation had not been entirely clear, it had been appropriate for the officers to deal with the matter and that it did not need to be referred to the planning committee. That said, Mr C also stated that the information provided by the developer regarding the discharge of the relevant conditions amounted to a substantial change and should have been treated as a variation to the planning consent. We found that the council should have obtained further information before the conditions were discharged. We found that they needed to establish what material was to be extracted from the site to in order to consider whether the original consent had been breached. They also needed to consider whether their decision to discharge the relevant conditions was safe and investigate the possible mechanisms available to them to rescind that decision, should they consider this necessary. In view of this, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of the nearby high pressure gas pipeline. We found that it had been reasonable for the council to rely on the alternative controls and measures available to the organisation that manages the gas network in Scotland, rather than pursue the issue through the planning process and the application of planning conditions. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's actions in relation to assessing the flood risk of a proposed loch at the quarry. The council considered that they had all the information they needed in relation to this to discharge the

Mr C complained about the delay in the council responding to his complaint and that they failed to take reasonable action to address his concerns about anti-social behaviour. The council took 11 months to respond to Mr C's complaint, and although they had apologised for the delay, we considered this delay to be unreasonable. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The council said in their response to our enquiry that the complaint had not been recorded as a complaint. The council had partially upheld the original complaint but not explained why. We therefore made a recommendation in this regard. We considered that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about anti-social behaviour. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Miss C complained that the council were unreasonable in their processing of her and her mother (Mrs A)'s mutual exchange application. She also complained that the council failed to assess and carry out repairs to Mrs A's house within a reasonable timescale, and that they failed to respond adequately to her complaints. We did not uphold Miss C's concerns about the mutual exchange because we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that the mutual exchange was cancelled by the council, as was suggested by Miss C. The council suggested that Mrs A cancelled the mutual exchange. As we did not have sufficient evidence to say who cancelled the mutual exchange, we did not uphold this element of the complaint. We also found that the council acted reasonably in respect of the requested repairs because their records indicated that they attended to every request for repairs, where possible. On the occasions where they failed to do so, their records noted that this was because they were unable to gain access. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Miss C's complaint. We did note that the council failed to respond to all the points that Miss C raised in her subsequent complaint, and we noted that their response contained a number of inaccuracies. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Mr C objected to a planning application that was subsequently granted. Mr C had raised various concerns with the council and was unhappy with the council's handling of these concerns, including in relation to insulation boards and solar panels. In particular, he felt that the council had failed to properly assess non-material variation (NMV) requests; that they had failed to properly identify and address concerns about deviations from the approved plan and potential breach of planning conditions; that they had failed to correctly implement their NMV guidelines; that they had not properly fed back the outcome of his complaint to relevant staff; and that they had not posted the NMV details online, which they said they would do. We sought independent planning advice. We noted that the council had already acknowledged and upheld some of Mr C's complaints. We upheld Mr C's complaints about the assessment of the NMVs. We also upheld Mr C's complaint in relation to the council having failed to properly identify and address appropriately concerns about deviations from the approved plan. The adviser felt that the NMV guidelines had unreasonably raised Mr C's expectations. We noted that some of Mr C's concerns about development had not been considered and responded to by the council. We also found that the council had failed to feed back the outcome of the complaint to the relevant officers and that the NMV information had not been posted online. However, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr C for this and had taken action to prevent a similar situation occurring in future.

Mr C complained about the council following an investigation they carried out into fly tipping near a property owned by a trust he was responsible for. He advised that he had recently instructed roof repairs to the property, which he told us had been completed and the waste properly disposed of in a skip procured by his roofing contractor. However, shortly after this, some roofing material was illegally left on council-owned land, near where the skip had been. Mr C advised that he contacted the council officer responsible for the investigation after a note was posted into the property in question. He said that the council officer immediately accused him of dumping the materials in question and refused to accept his attempts to refute the allegations, threatening to serve a fixed penalty notice if he did not arrange for the material to be immediately removed. On investigation, we found that the council officer had failed to carry out the investigation in line with council policies and procedures, which stated that enforcement action should only be taken if the council were in possession of two signed witness statements or conclusive evidence found within the dumped waste. From the evidence we saw, the council officer had acted on one informal report from a neighbour in the area, and that this report did not place the blame directly onto Mr C, but on the contractor who attended to collect the skip. We also considered that Mr C had presented clear arguments to support his innocence, including offering photographic evidence and a copy of a signed contract confirming that the roofing contractor was responsible for disposing of all waste generated by the repairs. According to the council's policies, their officer should have then contacted the contractor to discuss the matter further. Instead, he repeatedly threatened Mr C with a fixed penalty notice until Mr C arranged for the waste to be removed. Further to this, we were critical that the council had failed to ide

Ms C complained about the council regarding toileting equipment for her disabled child at the two schools the child attended. She told us that she found there had been no suitable toilet chair in place at either school for some time. She said that she then requested appropriate equipment was put in place but that this took a number of months. We found that it was not reasonable for the council to have failed to ensure appropriate equipment was in place until Ms C brought it to their attention. We also found that there were avoidable delays following Ms C's request. In particular, there was a delay of six weeks due to planned leave for a single member of staff. We considered that the council should have taken steps to ensure appropriate cover was in place given the nature and length of the leave. We also found that the council had failed to deliver accessories required to install the equipment in one of the schools. After this was identified by an occupational therapist there was a delay of around three months before these were provided. The council failed to provide an explanation for this error or subsequent delays. During our investigation, we also found that the council had failed to record a number of discussions held with Ms C that related to the care arrangements of her child.

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for a development near his home. We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond to an enquiry from him about the height of the building. We also found that the council had failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on his property and that the planning report contained inaccurate information about overlooking of his property, which misled the planning committee. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained to us about the action the council had taken to mitigate the impact of the development on his property. The council had asked the developer to plant trees along the boundary of the properties to provide additional privacy and screening. We found that the steps taken by the council in relation to the matter had not been satisfactory. Whilst the council had accepted that the problem had arisen because of their failings, they had tried to resolve the matter through negotiation with the developer. We found that it was the council's responsibility to try to resolve the matter. We considered that they should be prepared to fund the cost of this and use any measures available to them as the planning authority, in the event that negotiation fell short of what was required. We upheld this complaint. Finally, Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond to his correspondence about the matter appropriately. We found that the council should have registered his correspondence as a complaint at an earlier stage and had failed to keep him updated. They also failed to respond to him within the timescales they had given and did not respond reasonably to some of the issues he had raised. We upheld this complaint.

Miss C complained about care provided to her father (Mr A) by the council on a specific day, and about the council's handling of her complaint. We looked at information provided by Miss C and the council about what happened on the day. Both accounts agreed there was an incident with Mr A, but they did not agree about the reason for it. There was no conclusive evidence of the reason for the incident, which could have helped to prove whether the care provided was adequate in the circumstances. In the absence of this evidence, or any independent evidence of what actually happened, we could not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, although we did not uphold the complaint, we had concerns about specific actions of the staff member involved, and we made recommendations to address these concerns. The council's responses to Miss C's complaint focused on the days before and after the day she complained about. The council told us this was to assess whether what happened on the specific day could have been predicted, or if the care provided could have had an effect on Mr A. The council should have explained this to Miss C. It appears that no action was taken when Miss C first reported her complaint to the council, and there were delays when they did deal with her complaint. We found the council did not, as they should have, interrogate evidence provided by their staff thoroughly, in order to resolve a lack of clarity in the evidence given by staff. Our main concern was that the council failed to tell Miss C that she had the right to refer her complaint to a social work complaints review committee, which meant she was denied the opportunity to have her complaint heard fully through the correct process. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Mr C said that there was a long-standing history of complaints of low-level noise from an industrial estate close to his home but that the council failed to properly investigate these. He also said that when owners of the site applied for planning permission in 2014, a report presented to the planning committee failed to accurately report the noise issues. We investigated the complaint and also took independent planning advice. We found that from December 2011, the council had issued noise abatement notices in respect of the site but that the owners had failed to comply. After Mr C complained in 2012, the council visited the premises concerned and witnessed a number of noise issues about which they issued a further abatement notice. The owners were sent written warnings and advised of the penalties of non-compliance. No further complaints were received in 2012. Thereafter, the owners applied for planning permission and there was no doubt that the relevant committee report contained erroneous information. However, this was corrected orally at the planning committee meeting to discuss the application. Notwithstanding the error, we further found that noise was not a material consideration when determining the application. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508613 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council regarding a planning application they had approved for a residential property to be built in a site adjacent to his home, which is on a cliff edge. After approval of the plans, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had visited the site and, in contradiction of the plans, recommended that building should not take place within ten metres of the edge of the cliff. Mr C therefore questioned why SEPA were not consulted at the time of the application and the council responded to say that there was nothing about the application which would have triggered a consultation. As part of our investigation, the council provided SEPA's guidance for which applications they wished to be consulted upon. This did not include any reference to developments on or near cliff edges. The planning advice we received was that the decision not to consult was at the council's discretion in the circumstances. As such, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508851 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the removal of harassment points from her housing application. The main outcome she sought from the investigation of her complaint was to be rehoused. During our consideration of her case, Mrs C notified us of a change in address. We contacted Mrs C and asked that she confirm if she wished to proceed with the investigation. We did not receive a response. When we advised Mrs C that the case would be closed if we did not hear from her we still did not get a response, so we closed the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502341 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had levies added to his council tax liabilities across two years due to late payment. Mr C complained to the council that these levies were unreasonable because he had not received the correspondence in which the council had advised him of his liability and that his payment was overdue. Mr C was of the view that without proof of his receiving the correspondence the council were unable to add levies to his liability. The council told him that there was no requirement for them to provide such proof. Mr C complained to us. We decided that there was no requirement for the council to provide the type of proof Mr C sought and that the council's actions in adding the levies had been reasonable, so we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502211 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not handled his correspondence and complaints reasonably. He was unhappy that correspondence he had sent had not been answered, that he had not been able to speak with the complaints handler when he called and that there were inaccuracies in the final response to his complaint. Following careful consideration of the documentation, the council appeared to have only received one letter. There was no acknowledgement or response sent to Mr C. Mr C then contacted the council on a number of occasions to express his dissatisfaction at not receiving a response. The council did not identify these contacts as a complaint. It was only when Mr C approached us that the council logged a complaint - and used a phone note dated two months earlier as the complaint from Mr C, which led to inaccuracies when referring to timescales in the council's final response. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint that his complaint had not been handled reasonably by the council. We recommended that they apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation and remind housing staff of the definition of a complaint and the importance of identifying, logging and responding to complaints and keeping complainants updated as set out in the council's complaints procedure.