SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council were refusing to clear his neighbour's guttering which, he said, was having an impact on the effectiveness of his guttering. He also complained that the council refused to replace the garden fence. The council had initially agreed to do both but, as Mr C's neighbour turned out to be an owner-occupier, they said they would not carry out the work without an agreement that the neighbour would contribute to the costs. Mr C was unhappy with this view; however, having reviewed the council's procedures, we were satisfied that they were acting in accordance with their responsibilities. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201508642 as a PDF (10.9 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's daughter complained to her primary school of being bullied. The school took some action but the bullying continued. This was repeatedly reported to the school but the situation was not resolved. Mrs C decided to remove her daughter from the school due to the situation and recalled the head teacher saying that she was 'more than happy' for Miss C to move school. Mrs C complained to the council that the school had not taken reasonable action in response to the reports of her daughter being bullied and about the head teacher saying she was 'more than happy' for Miss C to move school. The council's investigation concluded that the school had acted reasonably. Mrs C raised complaints about this with us. We found that the school had not made any reasonable record of the reports of bullying, the actions taken or the subsequent outcomes. The school's policy and the council's related strategy indicated that this should have been done, and monitoring take place. We decided, therefore, that the school had not taken reasonable action in relation to the complaints of bullying and we made recommendations to address this. The council told us that the head teacher's remarks had been made in the context of Miss C obtaining a new start from moving schools. We decided that there was no evidence to reasonably conclude that the head teacher had made the remarks Mrs C alleged. We also decided that the council had not responded reasonably to the specific matters raised in Mrs C's complaints and had included irrelevant information in their responses and we made a recommendation to address this.

Mrs C complained that the step at the gated footpath access to her house was broken by a contractor who was working for the council. Mrs C said the damage occurred while the contractor was replacing street lighting on the public footway outside the house. Mrs C lodged a claim for the damaged step with the council. The council referred the claim to the contractor as they said it appeared from the information Mrs C had supplied that responsibility for the damage lay with the contractor. The council explained they had a contract with the contractor which required the contractor to have in place their own insurance. The council also stated that an indemnity clause in the contract meant that the council were not liable for any damage caused by the contractor and were not required to investigate matters that had been passed to third parties to manage in terms of the contract. The contractor subsequently rejected Mrs C's claim. Mrs C complained to the council. We considered, from the evidence supplied to us, that it was reasonable for the council to have referred Mrs C's claim to the contractor and that the investigation of the claim and its outcome were a matter for the contractor. However, we also considered this did not absolve the council from addressing the concerns Mrs C had raised in her complaint about the alleged failure of the contractor in communicating with her. We found that no proper consideration had been given to whether Mrs C was still pursuing a claim for damages or making a complaint and that a lack of communication and coordination within the council had led to an unreasonable delay in the investigation of Mrs C's complaint. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

Mr and Mrs C complained about the steps taken by the council after they raised concerns about the bullying their daughter (Ms A) had suffered at school. They were also unhappy at the council’s handling of their complaint and the fact that Mrs C had asked to attend school trips as a parent helper but had not been selected. Mr and Mrs C also raised concerns that the school did not communicate appropriately with health professionals involved with Ms A and that, in their view, school staff had acted inappropriately by discussing Ms A’s impending school move with her. We recognised the significance of Mr and Mrs C’s concerns about bullying and how this can affect a child and also the wider family. While we took this into account, our role was limited to considering whether the appropriate policies and procedures had been followed. The limited records available (including a playground diary and the school’s paperwork) did not support Mr and Mrs C’s correspondence. Although we recognised that the absence of a record does not automatically mean something did not happen, we did not consider the evidence available pointed to a failure to follow the relevant policy. We did not uphold this complaint but made one recommendation because of the age of the school’s policy and to ensure appropriate record-keeping in future. We upheld Mr and Mrs C’s complaint about the council’s complaints handling. This was a particularly sensitive and distressing matter for them and the council initially failed to acknowledge their complaint and then missed their deadline for formally responding. We made one recommendation as a result, although we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C’s remaining complaints. Although we recognised that Mrs C had been very keen to assist at school trips, we saw nothing to indicate that there has been a failure to act in line with the relevant policy. In addition, the paperwork available indicated that the school had involved a series of health professionals and did

Mr C lived close to an industrial site. He complained to the council about a number of issues with the site, including noise and air pollution, and unauthorised and dangerous buildings that had been constructed on the site. Although the council investigated Mr C’s complaints, he did not feel they took strong enough action against the owners and allowed the problems to continue far longer than necessary. We sought independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He advised that the council had acted in line with relevant planning enforcement guidance and legislation. The council had followed a recognised approach of working with the owners to find a solution that would resolve the issues, rather than simply punishing them with formal enforcement action. Although the owners did not initially stick to the terms agreed with the council, we were not critical of the council’s handling of the situation. Mr C raised further concerns about the consultation process for a new planning application at the site. Again, we were not critical of the council’s handling of this. However, we were critical of their handling of Mr C’s formal complaint. We found that their response failed to address points that he had raised and failed to adequately explain the council’s actions.

Mrs C accepted the council's offer to undertake insulation improvements on her property as they were undertaking such works on other properties in her street. She agreed subject to certain conditions that the council agreed to. When the works commenced Mrs C was dissatisfied with some of the contractor's actions and raised concerns and complaints with the council. She was given contact details of specific council officers whom she was told would respond to any concerns she had. When Mrs C used the contact details she found her contacts were not responded to or they were responded to by other council officers. She made further formal complaints about the actions of contractors and the council. When the works were completed Mrs C was dissatisfied that the pipework at her home had been replaced with differently coloured pipes. Mrs C complained to the council and remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of their complaints procedure. We found that the council had failed to honour some of the agreements they had made with Mrs C, that some of the actions of the contractor's and the council's staff had been unreasonable, that council staff had unreasonably failed to respond to some of Mrs C's requests for contact and that they had not responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints.

Mrs C complained that the council had not thoroughly investigated her concerns about the conduct of an employee. Mrs C also complained about the time taken to investigate her concerns. While we were unable to release further information to Mrs C during the investigation, as it was protected third party information, we were able to see that the council had thoroughly investigated Mrs C's concerns. While the investigation had taken longer than anticipated, there was good reason for this and the council were actively investigating throughout that time. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201500528 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, a council tenant, was unhappy with the steps the council had taken as her landlord. Her property had required a substantial repair the day after she moved in and, from the outset, she did not think it met the required standard of repair. Ms C was also unhappy with the amount of compensation they offered her following this, the fact that they did not provide her with alternative living and storage arrangements while works were being done, and also with the time taken for subsequent repairs. The council said that, when they did their normal inspection of the property before allocating it to Ms C, there had been no clear signs pointing to the problem. However, a historic repair they had done had been inadequate – it led to the additional repair then being needed. Therefore, on balance, we considered the evidence available indicated that the council had not provided a flat that met the required standard of repair when Ms C moved in. We upheld this complaint. Our role in considering Ms C’s compensation claim was limited to the council’s administrative handling of it. The evidence indicated that the council had offered Ms C the amount she had asked for. She said she would have asked for more had she known it would have been offset against her council tax arrears, but the council's guidance did explain that would happen. In addition, the form she signed included a declaration that Ms C had read and understood this guidance. However, the evidence also indicated that the council did not adjust Ms C’s award for depreciation or the lack of documentation, which they said they would do. The council had increased their offer following her additional contact and we did not uphold this complaint. Ms C’s lease said the council could require her to move temporarily for necessary repairs, but not that they had to move her for all repairs. They had offered alternative accommodation following the initial issue and during more recent repairs. There was no evidence that

Ms C's daughter has special needs and attended a special school where her behaviour meant she had to be restrained on a regular basis. In March 2014 her daughter was injured and severely bruised whilst being restrained. Ms C herself suggested a different type of restraint for use on her daughter. The school agreed to use this method of restraint and trained staff in this technique. However, Ms C then complained about the council using the original type of restraint and also about the council's subsequent investigation into her complaint. We noted that the restraint technique used was an approved method of restraint suitable for situations such as this. We noted that the school did change the restraint technique to be used on Ms C's daughter to one which Ms C herself had requested, and they carried out training to ensure staff were fully trained on this new technique. We fully accepted, as had the school and council, that her daughter was injured during this restraint but, as trained staff used an approved restraint technique, in line with the school and council's policies, we did not find evidence of administrative failing in this case. We also noted the investigation carried out by the council into Ms C's complaint was reasonable and found no evidence of administrative failure in the way it was carried out. As a result, we did not uphold the complaints.

A gas inspection was carried out at Miss C's home via forced entry. Miss C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide her with appropriate notice about the gas inspection. However, the evidence available confirmed that three attempts were made to gain entry to Miss C's home and appropriate notification was given that a forced entry would occur. The council acted within their remit and followed the appropriate procedures. Miss C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to her complaint. However, we found that the council responded appropriately to the main points of the complaint raised by Miss C. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201500560 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the council after they failed to pay him a decoration/disturbance allowance following works to upgrade the bathroom in his temporary accommodation. He believed that he was entitled to this as it was clearly stated in a letter sent to him by the council that this would be paid. This entitlement was also reiterated to him by a contractor who was carrying out a survey to his property prior to the commencement of works. In their final response to Mr C, and in communications with us, the council made it clear that Mr C should never have been notified that an allowance was payable, as this is provided to cover the costs of redecoration after works and, as a temporary occupant, he is not responsible for the decoration of his accommodation. They apologised to him for this miscommunication and took steps to ensure that a similar mistake would not be made in future. We therefore found that the decision not to pay the allowance was reasonable and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201501483 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to offer his sister (Ms A) the option of succeeding their father's tenancy on his council property after he had passed away. Mr C said his sister was living with their father prior to his death and should have been allowed to inherit their father's tenancy. Mr C said the council failed to follow their procedures in relation to his sister's application for succession to tenancy. He raised a number of issues in relation to this matter, including that the council failed to carry out house visits, checks and inspections to establish where Ms A had been living prior to their father's death; and failed to consider/accept evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application. The council's procedure on succession to tenancy stated that the authenticity of the information provided by the applicant on their application form must be checked by carrying out additional investigations/checks. However, the investigations/checks referred to by Mr C and listed in the council's procedure were not mandatory and were a list of the types of checks that could be carried out. The council provided documentary evidence which showed that they carried out several of the checks/investigations suggested. We saw no evidence that the council failed to consider the evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application. The council advised that the information provided by Ms A had been taken into account. However, they said that other evidence, which included information provided by neighbours and investigations carried out by housing staff, was considered to be stronger and more reliable. It was not our role to determine what weight should be placed on any particular evidence: that was the discretionary decision of the council. The evidence suggested that the council followed their procedure when dealing with Ms A's succession to tenancy application. Therefore, we did not consider that the council unreasonably failed to offer Ms A

The council had authorised entry to their contractor to a site adjacent to Mr C's street via his street, which is an unadopted road. Mr C complained to the council that they had failed to ensure that the street was returned to the condition it was in before the council required access, and also that they had failed to provide him with consistent advice about their responsibility to repair the damage. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to reply to his complaint. Following our investigation, we found evidence that the council were satisfied with the works which had been undertaken by their contractor. As there was no evidence of fault in the way the council handled the matter, we did not uphold his complaint about this. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had given inconsistent advice about their responsibility to repair any damage as it was evident that he had agreed to the works which the contractor would undertake, and although he was not satisfied with what was undertaken, and that his claim to the council was rejected, he had been given advice of his right of recourse to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland or the courts. However, we found that there had been an unreasonable failure to reply to Mr C's complaint and so we upheld this, making recommendations of apology and a refresher to council staff about the council's complaints procedure.

A planning application was submitted for land next to Mr C's property. Mr C viewed the available documents and made representations to the council. He also asked for copies of information that would have made clear the proposed heights of the dwellings being proposed, but was not given this information. The planning application was approved. When work began, Mr C was concerned about the height of the ground being prepared for the dwelling to be built closest to his home. He complained to the council that the height of the proposed dwelling had not been clear from the information available to the public during the consultation period. In response the council advised that clear indications of the heights of the proposed dwelling had been available when the decision to grant permission had been taken. Mr C brought his complaint to us. We took independent planning advice, and found that the documents that the council said made clear the heights of the proposed dwelling were not available to the public during the consultation period, and that this was not in line with the terms of relevant national policy. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application to build a commercial retail development on a site close to her property. She complained that the council had not sent her any neighbour notification of this, and so she was unable to object to the application. She also complained that when assessing the application the council failed to give proper consideration to the close proximity of the building to her property and that the surrounding fence added extra height, cutting off light into her garden. Finally, Mrs C was aggrieved that her address had been identified as the planning site and complained that the council had allowed the developer to attach a fence to the boundary wall, which she believed belonged to her. During our investigation we took advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the council accepted that, by mistake, Mrs C had not been neighbour notified. However, they had investigated how the error occurred, apologised to Mrs C and taken action to ensure that her property would be notified in future, so we did not need to make a recommendation. We were also satisfied that, while the development was close to Mrs C's property there were no significant daylight/sunlight issues, and the fence that was erected independently of the boundary wall would not have a significant impact on residential properties in terms of daylight/sunlight. We found no evidence that the council gave permission for the fence to be attached to the boundary wall and when the unauthorised fence was brought to their attention, they took action to ensure that it complied with the approved plans. Related reading View Decision Report 201305445 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to the council about their refusal to install a gas fire in her home when the existing one broke down and was replaced with an electric fire. Mrs C said that she offered to pay for a new gas fire but the council refused and advised her to use her gas central heating system. She was concerned that the electric fire would affect her asthma but was told that it was council policy to only install electric fires. Mrs C was unhappy that the gas central heating took longer to heat up, was unreliable, and more expensive to run when she needed to get up during the night because of suffering from other disabilities. She felt that the council may be in breach of their own disability policy by not allowing her to have a gas fire. We found that the council had checked the gas central heating was properly working and they had arranged for advice to be given on how to heat her home efficiently but this was refused by her. We did not find evidence to show that the council had failed to follow their written procedures in terms of their gas safety policy or that their policy failed to meet Mrs C’s health and disability needs when refusing her a gas fire. They also made a prompt referral to social services to assess Mrs C’s health needs, although this was not carried out. The council said that this was because Mrs C refused the assessment but Mrs C said she was told it was unlikely social services could do anything about getting her a gas fire. We found no evidence that Mrs C was given this advice. We were satisfied that the council had not dismissed her health concerns and noted that they remained willing to explore Mrs C's health needs and the options available. We found, therefore, that the council's actions were reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201400589 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

After a tank in her loft burst, Ms C submitted a compensation claim to the council. They wrote to her with an offer of compensation, but said that she would not receive any money as it would be set against her council tax arrears. Ms C disputed the outstanding council tax, as she said that the council did not make her aware of it and she queried their right to offset the compensation against her council tax. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. The council provided clear evidence that council tax notices, reminders and warrant notices had been sent to Ms C each year, and there was evidence that they had phoned Ms C about her outstanding bill. Their procedure for compensation payments also said that they had the right to offset these against any outstanding debt, including council tax arrears. In addition the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 gave them the right to use information gathered under any other function in their council tax levying process. Related reading View Decision Report 201402112 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, a council tenant, complained to us about the council's handling of repairs to her bathroom. She said there were delays in carrying out the repairs and that she had experienced poor communication with the council and contractors. She also said the contractors caused damage to her house while carrying out the repairs. We asked Ms C for more information to help us investigate this. However, she then told us that she had paid private contractors to repair the damage and wanted to withdraw her complaints. In accordance with Ms C's wishes, we stopped investigating and closed our file. Related reading View Decision Report 201402187 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application to build a temporary building in the school next door. She said that they had not provided accurate information about the application, and that although she had been told that the structure would not be higher than her boundary wall, it turned out to be higher than it when built. She also said that the structure affected her privacy and the amount of daylight she received, and that the council had not addressed her concerns about what was being built, or about damage to the boundary wall and the impact on her property. Finally Mrs C said that the council had failed to address her concern that the local councillor was given conflicting information about an offer of compensation. After taking advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the council failed to follow the appropriate process to let neighbours know about the application, and there was no clear evidence about what they told Mrs C about the height of the structure relative to the boundary wall. We were also satisfied that the council had addressed her concerns about what was being built on site, although there was some uncertainty about whether the building had been built in accordance with the plans as far as the relative height to the wall was concerned. We were also satisfied that they had responded to Mrs C's concerns about the impact of the structure on her property, and about the boundary wall. The council had explained that the wall had been inspected. We found no evidence of conflicting information in relation to compensation.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken appropriate action to address a number of concerns he had about a neighbouring development. He said that the boundary fence was unsafe because a large number of nails protruded from it into his property and that there were excavations beside the fence that the developer had not completely filled in. He also complained that the developer failed to properly connect drains to the drainage system of the neighbouring private road. The council had explained to Mr C that their planning department were satisfied that the fence complied with the approved plans and that the finish of the fence was a private legal matter. They also said that the drainage problem was a matter between residents and the developer, as the road was private. We fully considered the information from the council and Mr C, and agreed that the issues Mr C raised were essentially private legal matters. We were satisfied that the council's planning and building control team had taken appropriate steps to try and address his concerns, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201301964 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mrs A) that the council were not doing enough to prevent water seeping into her garden and pooling on her path where it met the public pavement. He explained that this caused problems in winter when the water froze, and increased Mrs A's risk of falling. He said that the water was coming from council land, so they should put in additional drains to minimise the seepage. In responding to the complaint, the council inspected the drains from the property and found no problems. They also inspected the council-owned area of grass beside Mrs A's home and installed a soakaway (a gravel-filled channel or pit that helps manage surface water), although they did not think that very much water was coming into her property from there. The council said they thought that the problem she was experiencing was due to groundwater (water found underground in the cracks and spaces in soil, sand and rock), and pointed out that property owners are responsible for protecting their own property from flooding and for draining their land. They provided advice on what Mrs A could do to improve drainage, and also resurfaced the pavement to reduce the risk of pooling at the entrance to the path. They said, however, that the remaining pooling related to paving slabs on the path itself, and was Mrs A's responsibility. We checked the council's statutory responsibilities under roads and flooding legislation. Our investigation found that this makes it clear that the home owner is responsible for water collecting in their own property. Having considered the council's responsibilities, and the actions they had already taken to try and improve the situation for Mrs A, we found no evidence of administrative failure in how they handled this. Related reading View Decision Report 201305638 as a PDF (11.48 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had incorrectly advised him about his entitlement to council tax exemption and had not administered his application for an exemption properly. Mr C told us he had purchased a house from a builder but that the building work on the property had not been completed. After buying the property, Mr C told the council that he would not be able to move in until works were complete and requested that the appropriate exemptions to council tax be applied. The council said that Mr C did not meet the criteria for a council tax exemption because more than twelve months had elapsed between the last day of the previous occupancy and the date of his entry into the property. Mr C complained to us that he had complied with advice from the council, but that the evidence he had submitted in support of his application for an exemption had been ignored. He said that they rejected his application, referring to a category he had not applied for; had not acknowledged the contradictions in the advice he had received, nor had they accepted that his documentation had not been processed. Our investigation found that Mr C had made two council tax exemption applications under different criteria. The council had considered both of these in good time, and had correctly applied the council tax (Exemption Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 and the council tax exemption procedures. We found no evidence that they had provided Mr C with incorrect and misleading advice, or that his applications had been administered inappropriately. We also found they had responded in good time to Mr C's initial complaint, although there was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation about this delay, noting that the council had apologised to Mr C for this before he brought his complaint to us.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her elderly mother (Mrs A), who had been served with a summary warrant for non-payment of council tax. Mrs C said her mother had not received the necessary reminder letters that should be issued when a council tax instalment is not paid on the due date. She believed that the council had failed to follow the correct process and was unhappy that a summary warrant was served and a bill for late payment issued in addition to Mrs A's council tax. She remained dissatisfied with what she saw as the council's unsympathetic response after she had made them aware that her mother had suffered two strokes in the last eighteen months which had left her unwell, disorientated and confused. Although we appreciated that Mrs A had been unwell, there was evidence that she had been made aware of her responsibility to pay council tax and what would happen if she did not pay on the due date. We checked and were satisfied that the council had issued the reminder letters, noting that they have a duty to collect council tax in accordance with the legislation and are not able to take individual circumstances into account in the way Mrs C had thought they should. There was no evidence to show that the letters were not delivered, and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint as there was nothing to suggest that the council had done anything wrong. Related reading View Decision Report 201304029 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to carry out work to his bathroom wall despite previously agreeing to do so. The council had told him that the offer of work was being withdrawn because he had made an abusive phone call to a member of staff. Mr C complained that the council had never told him what the abuse consisted of, or when it was meant to have taken place. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council did not conduct an adequate investigation into his concerns, and their responses had been confused and at times contradictory. There was also confusion about the possible involvement of a councillor. Council officers were unclear about the policies and procedures to be used when dealing with difficult phone calls, and we found that the withdrawal of the offer of the work was neither proportionate nor reasonable. We also found that the council's record-keeping was inadequate and that there was no proper audit trail of the decision-making process.

Miss C was unhappy that the council had failed to comply with recommendations made by a social work complaints review sub-committee. She said the council should have notified a sheriff that there were errors in a contact and residence report prepared by a social worker, which was submitted to the court. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the sub-committee only made one recommendation and that was for social work to review their processes. Related reading View Decision Report 201300724 as a PDF (10.78 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018