SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C reported missed collections of his recycling bins to the council on their web portal. He said that sometimes the problem was rectified within one week, however he felt that over time, reporting the missed collections did not seem to make a difference. Mr C raised a formal complaint with the council and the council responded by apologising and advising that all refuse had been uplifted from his property. They explained the problem was due to an operative error. Mr C requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The council issued their final response and they explained that the depot had been in the process of reviewing their recycling routes and they anticipated that the issues would be resolved. Mr C contacted us and told us that the council had failed to collect the recycling bins at his property on at least seven occasions over the previous six months. We found that the council had unreasonably failed to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and we found little evidence that the council took adequate steps to prevent this from happening. We also found that they had failed to properly investigate Mr C's complaints, as their responses to his complaints did not provide reasons for the missed bin collections. We upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Mr C reported missed recycling bin collections to the council. He said that he reported these to the council on more than one occasion, and that his case was closed with no subsequent collection of the bins. He raised a formal complaint and the council responded by apologising and advising that the recycling bins had since emptied and that the service had returned to schedule. Mr C said the bins had not been collected. He said that after he raised his complaint, a council employee came to his house and spoke to his mother-in-law, however they did not leave any contact details so Mr C could not follow up the visit properly. He said he received no communication from the council about when the bins would be collected. Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to collect his recycling bins, and that they failed to adequately investigate and respond to his complaints. We found that, while the council had identified issues with bin collection in Mr C's area, they had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that bins were emptied as per their schedule. We found that the council failed on a number of occasions to empty Mr C's recycling bins and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that the council did not provide Mr C with reasons for their failings and they did not provide him with a formal response at stage one of his complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained to the council about missed bin collections and their failure to lock the gates to the bin area at his home. The council said that they had spoken to operatives to remind them of the importance of locking the gate. The council also said that they replaced the locks and offered to provide Mr C with a key for the lock so that he could lock the gates should he find them open again, though Mr C said he did not receive this key. The council also provided him with direct contact details for a supervisor and manager. After the council closed the complaint, the problems started to happen again. Mr C said he would have to chase away young people who were congregating in the area to drink and smoke. He complained that he could not get in touch with the supervisor and manager on their phones, that they were not responding to his emails and that the council had failed to inform him that these members of staff were on long-term leave. Mr C tried to raise his complaint again after the gates were left unlocked again and the council responded advising that they were treating it as a service request and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained to us that the council's operatives unreasonably failed to close and lock the gate to the bin area. He also complained that the council failed to properly investigate and provide a reasonable response to his complaint. We found some failings in the council's actions. It was evident that their investigation of the complaint and subsequent actions were not effective, as the problem continued to persist. We also found that the final response from the council to Mr C's complaint was inadequate. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that contractors working on land opposite his home created a new site entrance and works compound, despite him have received assurance from the council during the planning process that the existing site access would be preserved. The council advised this on the basis that the planning application did not show plans for a new entrance. Revised plans showing the new access arrangements were then submitted, subsequent to this complaint, and the council deemed the new access permitted development, not requiring planning permission. We took independent advice from an planning adviser, who found that the new access and compound were classified as permitted development. We, therefore, concluded that the council did not act unreasonably in allowing the contractors to take this action, and we did not uphold this aspect of complaint. Mr C also complained about the way in which the council responded to his concerns. As he had received an assurance from the council that the existing access arrangements would be preserved, we considered that he was justified in raising concerns when this changed. However, the council initially advised him that the planning process could not consider matters of construction, which the planning adviser disagreed with. The council then noted that they had no obligation under the planning process to provide Mr C with an individual response to his representations. They did not explain to him that the deviation from the submitted plans was permissible under permitted development rights, despite confirming this to the applicant shortly thereafter. We considered that the council failed in their duty to respond reasonably to valid concerns raised by a member of the public and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C reported missed bin collections to Glasgow City Council and subsequently raised the issue as a formal complaint. In their final response to Mr C's complaint, the council apologised and advised that all refuse was collected as requested and that their collection crews had been reminded to ensure all waste is uplifted. When Mr C brought his complaint to us, he told us that the bins had not been collected, contrary to the council’s letter. Mr C reported further missed collections and the council responded advising they would pass this onto the local depot and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to collect his bins and that they did not adequately investigate his complaints. The council told us that they were experiencing a higher than normal level of requests and complaints at the time that Mr C raised his complaint. They also said they had to bring in additional workers who were unfamiliar with the routes. Despite the council investigating the complaint, we found that they continued to fail to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and failed to provide an explanation for this. We upheld both complaints.

Mr C told us he had been complaining to the council for a number of years about the lack of street cleaning at his business address. He told us that the council have insisted that the street is cleaned regularly. However, he has seen the same rubbish lying there for weeks. In the council's final response to Mr C's complaint, they advised that the litter on his street was due to uncontained refuse from adjacent sites. They told him that the street is scheduled to be swept on Saturdays, and they will continue to monitor the area. Mr C said the situation did not improve and he tried to complain to the council again five months later. The council advised that he had already exhausted the complaints process. Our investigation found that the council had failed to clean the street, as Mr C reported seeing the same rubbish lying there for several weeks. Where the rubbish had come from was irrelevant. It was also evident that the steps taken by the council following their investigation had been ineffective, as the problem persisted. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C, who owns a commercial property, complained about the way the council had handled his complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring commercial property. Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the other premises. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council has a legal responsibility under the Environmental Health Act 1990 to investigate complaints of noise and to take action where they determine that a statutory noise nuisance exists. We found that the council had investigated the complaints of noise nuisance and had decided that there were no grounds to take statutory enforcement action. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision and the basis upon which they had exercised their judgement in this case. As such, based on the evidence available and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide a full and reasonable response to his complaint. We found that while the responses were outwith the timescales detailed in the complaints handling procedure, the council had met with Mr C and had provided a reasonable response to his representations. As such, we did not uphold the complaint. Finally, Mr C complained that the council had decided to withdraw the services of their noise pollution team until suitable insulation had been installed. We found that the council had decided, after investigation, that the noise problems were being caused by ineffective noise insulation between the two premises and that, until such time as sound insulation works were carried out, they would not respond to further noise complaints. This was a discretionary decision for the council to take and we found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision to Mr C. Based on the avail

Mrs C made a complaint about the council who she stated were not regularly cleaning the street and emptying bins outside her business premises. She had contacted the council on several occasions about this matter but remained unhappy with the response as often nobody would come out to clean or there would be a delay in this being actioned. The council arranged for additional staff to attend the area and clean but they were unable to access with the road sweeper due to parked cars. They re-arranged to attend and cleaned the immediate area in front of Mrs C's business. She was unhappy about this as there was broken glass on the pavement nearby and rubbish was clogging up the drains. She reported this to the council who escalated her complaint. In their final response they offered an apology for any inconvenience and arranged for a further clean of the street. Mrs C remained unhappy and asked SPSO to investigate her complaint. We obtained information from the council including case notes and evidence of their local procedures. There was no contrary evidence provided by the council to indicate that they had been meeting their obligations. As Mrs C's business was in a shopping street, local procedure meant it should be cleaned daily. The council had also indicated that they had an increased budget for the new financial year and therefore would be able to improve their street cleaning operations. In light of the absence of any evidence that the street area had been cleaned daily as required, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605584 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the standard of street cleaning in her area, particularly in the autumn when leaves are blocking drains and causing flooding. She said that despite her reporting problems with blocked drains and leaf litter many times via the council's online reporting system, and despite the council's agreement that they would carry out a deep clean of the street and add the street to their list for priority leaf removal in the autumn, the council failed to take reasonable steps to effectively clear the street. The council acknowledged to us their failures to effectively clear Ms C's street when requested to do so and the evidence we considered supported this. As a result, we upheld the complaint.

Mr C began to experience an increase in cooking smells from the cafe above which he lived. Mr C contacted the council's Land and Environment Services (LES) department to report a nuisance. Two months later, he wrote to the council's Development and Regeneration Services (DRS) department to report that the cafe had breached the planning permission granted. Mr C was not satisfied with the way that either department responded to his correspondence, and he submitted a complaint to the council. He was also not satisfied with the way his complaints to LES and DRS had been handled by the council. We noted that throughout Mr C's correspondence with LES, he had raised concerns that the cafe did not have an extraction system and was not meeting ventilation requirements. In response to our enquiries regarding ventilation, the council informed us that in a previous planning consultation response, LES had recommended to DRS that a high-level flue was required for the cafe. The council advised that this was not considered by DRS at the initial stage of the planning process, or by the Local Review Committee at the review stage of the planning process. We took independent planning advice. The adviser noted that the council was not obliged to attach a planning condition regarding a flue as the Local Review Committee had discretion in deciding which planning conditions, if any, to attach to any planning permission. Overall we found that the council had taken appropriate steps to investigate the first reported nuisance. However, we noted that the council's records were not clear regarding the reason for a delay in the investigation. The council acknowledged that they had not updated Mr C appropriately about the progress of the investigation. We also found that Mr C's report of nuisance had not been acknowledged and that he had not been advised of the outcome of the nuisance investigation in writing. We also found that the council had not acted appropriately in response to a

Mr C, a lawyer, complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A). Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling bins from Miss A's address as scheduled, and about the council's handling of Miss A's complaint. The council acknowledged there had been operational failures leading to missed collections from Miss A's address. For example, collection crews failed to record missed uplifts. This resulted in Miss A having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions. The council's response to Miss A's complaint said they would ensure collections were not missed. However, as Miss A had to report further missed collections to the council and complain to us, it was clear the council's response to her complaint failed to ensure recycling collections would take place. This called into question the quality of the council's investigation into Miss A's complaint and the remedy put in place as a result of her complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaints and made recommendations. However, the council has taken action to address the failings in complaints handling and therefore we have made no recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling and waste from his address as scheduled. He also complained about the council's handling of his complaint. The council acknowledged there had been missed collections from Mr C's street and that reasons for this included collection crews having failed to record missed collections. This resulted in Mr C having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions. We found that until we enquired, the council had failed to investigate and respond to Mr C's second formal complaint about the bin collections. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints. The council have taken action to address their failings and Mr C told us the bin collection service was now consistent. We have therefore made no recommendations to the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201602304 as a PDF (10.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that the council failed to act on concerns she raised about possible structural damage to her home caused by works carried out on the adjoining property. She was of the view that the building control team failed in their duty to protect her and her family from dangerous works, failed to respond appropriately to her phone calls and failed to communicate with her appropriately. She was also unhappy with their response to her subsequent complaint. We found that the council had inspected the work and noted that the works which caused damage were to a party wall which was not included in the building warrant. The council obtained agreement from the neighbour to reinstate the wall and, having inspected the wall, they were satisfied that it was safe. The damage caused to Miss C's property by the works carried out by her neighbour were, essentially, private legal matters between her and her neighbour. Having reviewed the council's actions, we were satisfied that they responded to Miss C's concerns appropriately. We were also satisfied that they had provided a reasonable response to her subsequent complaint. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508161 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure his bins were collected. We contacted the council, who did not respond to our enquiries in full. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained to us about parking tickets that he had received from the council. Mr C had appealed some of the charges but the council had rejected his appeal. He then appealed the charges to the independent body that deals with appeals but at that stage, the council decided not to contest his appeal. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to action his report of faulty ticket machines. We found that the council had delayed in correcting the signs on the machines about the coins they would accept and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. He also complained about the council's handling of the appeals. We found that although Mr C had been inconvenienced by the fact that he had to submit a second appeal to the independent body, the decisions taken on the appeals by the council were decisions they were entitled to take and there was no evidence of procedural failings. Mr C also complained that the council had not told him why they had decided not to contest his appeal. However, this was also a decision they were entitled to take. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to issues he had raised about the legal position of the parking spaces. We found that the council's response to him on this matter had been reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold this complaint. Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not followed their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints. We found that there had been delays in dealing with Mr C's complaint. The council had only recorded the matter as a complaint after this office became involved. We also found that the council had not adequately responded to all of the issues he raised. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained to us about the council's assessment of his mother (Mrs A)'s residential care charges. Mr C did not have power of attorney for Mrs A, and he had not progressed his concerns to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). We looked at the council's handling of the complaint because of the difficulties Mr C was having in progressing his complaint and because the council did not give him a timely response after they received permission from Mrs A's attorney. The council sent a detailed response to Mr C and offered to convene a CRC. Related reading View Decision Report 201601004 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C brought a complaint on behalf of Mrs A, who lives in a block of accommodation. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew their offer of grant funding towards works required to bring Mrs A's house up to a reasonable standard. She also complained that the council failed to provide Mrs A with assistance in seeking agreement from the other property owners in the block to arrange for the works to be carried out. We found that the block in which Mrs A's home was included was identified as being sub-standard. Initially the council's efforts were directed towards assisting owners of the properties concerned to arrange for the works to be completed to bring the properties up to a habitable standard. To assist with this, the council offered grants towards the costs of the works. However, as the owners did not agree to carry out the works themselves, the council were required, using their powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, to intervene and take responsibility for arranging for the works to be completed. As they were required to carry out the works, they withdrew their offer of grant funding. We found that the council had provided advice and assistance to owners in their efforts to progress the improvement works. It was noted, however, that Mrs A had not requested additional support. We noted that the decision to withdraw grant funding where owners do not agree to take forward the improvement works themselves was in line with the council's scheme of assistance. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507951 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained about the council's communication with her over a series of suspensions to her housing benefit. We found that the council had communicated clearly with Miss C about the reasons for the suspensions and that she had been told what further information was required. Although during our investigation we found that Miss C expected the council to reply to her emails unreasonably quickly, we did find administrative failings on the council's part, including sending an important email to the wrong address, not finding an attachment to one of Miss C's emails, and advising Miss C that a notice had been sent when it had not. They also failed to reply to two separate emails sent by Miss C. We therefore upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C applied to the council for a Community Care Grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund after moving into a new, unfurnished home. He was initially awarded the majority of items he requested but was refused others, including hallway and bathroom carpets, a washing machine, and a microwave. Dissatisfied with this, he requested a review of the decision and was awarded a washing machine. He then requested a further review stating that he felt that not having a microwave and hallway or bathroom flooring was unacceptable due to his medical circumstances. However, this was refused, prompting Mr C to complain to us. We found that the council had acted correctly when considering Mr C's medical circumstances at the first and second stages. However, they failed to evidence that they had considered his medical circumstances when assessing his final request for review and we found the level of information recorded at this stage to be poor. They had also failed to follow up on an offer from Mr C to provide supporting evidence from his doctor or social worker, which we found unreasonable in the circumstances. For these reasons, we upheld his complaint.

Ms C complained that after moving into a new flat she experienced ongoing issues with her bins not being emptied by the council. It was clear from the evidence that Ms C's bins were not collected on multiple occasions. We were satisfied that the council had taken steps to arrange bin collections when Ms C contacted them and also that they had made sure that the refuse crews and the supervisor were aware of the situation and the need to include Ms C's property on the weekly bin run. However, despite this, there were still occasions when Ms C's bins were not emptied. The council provided a number of different reasons for the missed bin collections. We found that the reasons supplied by the council were confusing and inconsistent. However, the council later advised that the main issue was the lack of a working key to access the bin store in Ms C's property, which they had resolved. We considered it was unreasonable that the council had taken five months to resolve this and arrange access to the bin store. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint and made two recommendations to address this.

Miss C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application; in particular, that the development had not been built in line with approved plans. Miss C was also concerned that she had not been notified about amended plans which had been submitted. She also complained that the council failed to include a screening condition within the planning decision notice, and about the council's handling of her representations. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Miss C's concerns about the planning merits of the development and while there was a variation in relation to the height of the development, this was small and did not represent a material difference. As such, no further action was necessary. We found no evidence of fault in the handling of the planning application. While we also found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision that there was no need for a screening condition, we were concerned that Miss C had been provided with conflicting information on this matter. While we did not find that the council's responses to Miss C's representations were unreasonable, we found that they should have clarified at an earlier stage whether Miss C was raising a complaint in terms of their complaints handling procedure and should have provided information on progressing her complaint.

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the council's application of their unacceptable actions policy (UAP). Mr A had been in contact with the council over a number of years about matters relating to the care of his child. Following concern about the nature and frequency of Mr A's contact with the council, they notified him that they had applied their UAP to manage his contact with them. We found that the council had decided to implement their UAP after proper consideration had been given to Mr A's communication with their staff, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the council had applied the UAP inconsistently or that they had acted unreasonably in not inviting either Ms C or Mr A to meetings regarding his child, so we also did not uphold these aspects of the complaint although we did make a recommendation about the council's procedures for arranging such meetings. We upheld Ms C's complaint that there appeared to be an ad-hoc approach to the council reviewing Mr A's status under the UAP and lack of communication with him about this, although we were satisfied that they had since carried out a review, so we did not make any further recommendations about this. We also found that there were unreasonable delays in some of the council's responses to Mr A's complaint, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint too.

Mr C, who is a landlord, asked the council to pay his tenant's housing benefit directly to himself. The council failed to do this and the tenant did not pass on the payment to Mr C. The council explained that when Mr C requested the housing benefit be paid to him, the tenant had not yet been granted housing benefit. They made a note on the file. The council acknowledged they had failed to ensure the payment, when authorised, was paid to Mr C. For this reason we upheld the complaint. We noted that the council had apologised for the error and spoken to the relevant staff about the matter. Therefore we did not make any recommendations about this. As the investigation progressed, it became clear that the tenant had not been entitled to housing benefit. Therefore, even if payment had been made to the landlord correctly, the council would have been within their powers to pursue the landlord for the overpayment. It is for the landlord and not the council to pursue their tenant for any outstanding rent they are due. Related reading View Decision Report 201503957 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the standard of work undertaken at their property by a company installing insulated cladding. The company had a contract with the council, who were coordinating this work under Scottish Government grant funding. The company were responsible for offering the insulation works to owner occupiers, and Mr and Mrs C signed a contract for them to deliver this work. The council's role was to monitor the works as they were being undertaken, to ensure that they were of an appropriate standard, and to ensure that appropriate materials were used. This was to ensure that the final product fulfilled the criteria for a full warranty on the works. They also took on a role as intermediary in any dispute between the company and Mr and Mrs C. Our investigation found that the council inspected the works as they progressed, and were satisfied with the work on site. Mr and Mrs C started to express dissatisfaction when the work was nearly completed. The council discussed these concerns with them and with the company. Over the period of a year they worked with both sides to try and find a satisfactory resolution to the issues raised, but Mr and Mrs C remained dissatisfied. We found that the council had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to the work being undertaken and we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We did however note that Mr and Mrs C's contract was with the company, so they could pursue the issue further with the company if they wished to do so. Related reading View Decision Report 201502012 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

When Mr and Mrs C decided to buy their housing association property they needed certificates from the council which showed their council tax payments were up to date. When they asked for the certificates the council said one could not be issued for Mrs C because she had council tax arrears. The council said the debt would need to be managed by their debt management partner. We found that when Mr C first contacted the council they took around six weeks to deal with his enquiry, which was too long. The council provided inaccurate information to Mrs C by failing to include arrears from a previous address. The council also failed to pass the correct information to the debt management partner, which meant that Mrs C was only asked to pay a portion of the total amount outstanding. This caused a further delay. It was not until after Mr C complained that the council realised they had not notified Mr and Mrs C about arrears that Mrs C had at a previous address. All of this amounted to unreasonable confusion. The council explained that these things were the result of staff error. We considered the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We found that the council had responded in time to the complaint. However the response failed to address Mr C's questions about how or why discrepancies had arisen in respect of the amounts owed, or what action had been taken as a result.