SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council had not stored his belongings safely while he was in prison. He had been living in temporary accommodation before beginning his prison sentence in December 2010. His belongings were bagged and tagged by a removals contractor and placed in a council owned storage facility. When Mr C came to collect them in June 2011, he complained that some of his personal items were missing. He provided lists of items to the council. The council’s position was that the belongings bagged and tagged had not been touched or moved during the time in storage. However, at that time the council did not keep inventories of belongings kept in storage. Since October 2011, as a result of Mr C's complaint, they have requested copies of inventories prepared by the removals contractor. However, we found that this does not include a fully itemised inventory. We upheld Mr C’s complaint as we found the current system meant the council could not provide evidence of what exactly they were storing and for whom.

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to adopt (take over responsibility for) land behind his property a number of years ago, and take over the maintenance of the land. Mr C felt this had been a mistake at the time by the council and the developer of the estate. The council had been carrying out maintenance of the area of land subject to the complaint for a number of years and Mr C was dissatisfied when the council decided to withdraw this maintenance. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations. During our investigation we found no evidence that the council were required to adopt open space in private developments for future maintenance purposes. Also in this case, we found no evidence that the land had been transferred to the council and as a result the land had not been adopted by the council. The council had been carrying out maintenance of the land, but on a voluntary basis, and they were under no obligation to either continue to maintain, or to acquire, the land. We did find evidence of fault in the handling of Mr C's representations. The council had, however, already taken action to reduce the time taken to respond in situations such as this (where there were a number of council services involved) and were carrying out a review of their complaints handling procedure. We took this into account, and that they had already apologised to Mr C. We had no recommendations to make. Related reading View Decision Report 201100827 as a PDF (17.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's complaint concerned his late father's headstone in the council's cemetery. A team from the council had inspected the headstone and decided that it was unstable. The council attached a sticker to the stone to indicate that it needed repair. Mr C complained about the testing procedure and about the conditions the council sought to impose upon him in carrying out the repair work. He was dissatisfied with their response and complained to us. Our investigation found that burial ground operators should have systems in place to control risks to visitors and other members of the public. The approach set out in the guidance involves the periodic assessment of memorials as part of a planned programme including a visual check, a hand test and more detailed inspections where required. The guidance said that appropriate precautions can then be taken to manage the risk to the public. We found that the council had in fact followed appropriate procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201101243 as a PDF (16.67 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was the chairman of the board of governors of a registered charity involved in drug rehabilitation. He believed the charity had exemption from paying council tax because of its charitable status and because it refers to a house of multiple occupation. He was unhappy that, as a result of non-payment of council tax, the council passed the arrears to sheriff officers for recovery. We found that the relevant legislation in this matter was The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). On examining the legislation we established that it refers to unoccupied dwellings and, therefore, the charity could not be considered to be exempt. We found that the council acted correctly in telling the charity that they were not exempt. Related reading View Decision Report 201101244 as a PDF (13.69 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

A supermarket chain applied for planning permission to build a new store opposite Mrs C's home. Mrs C complained that the road outside her property is dangerous and that planning permission was granted without proper consideration of the danger to local residents entering and exiting their driveways. She complained that amendments to the layout of the junction for the new supermarket were not made known to local residents and that the council failed to carry out appropriate and independent assessments of the safety of the road. We found that the amendments to the plans for the junction were non-material variations to the original plans and, as such, did not require neighbour notification. The developers carried out Roads Safety Audits and we considered these to have been appropriate within the context of the planning process. We did not consider there to be an obligation on the council to carry out further assessments and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201003934 as a PDF (13.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C objected to a planning application being considered by the council. A letter advising him of the regulatory panel meeting that would decide the application and at which he could have the opportunity to present his objection was sent to him 14 days before that meeting. He received the letter the following day. He complained that this meant the council had not followed their own procedures for giving notice of such meetings to objectors. The council advised him that their procedures state that notification will be sent at least 14 days in advance and this was followed. Mr C complained to SPSO that the fact that he received notice 13 days in advance of the meeting was contrary to procedures and made the meeting (at which he spoke) invalid. He felt that because the documents associated with the application were extensive, objectors should have been given longer than the 14 days set out in the council’s procedures. Our investigation concluded that the council’s procedures clearly stated that notification must be sent at least 14 days in advance of a hearing, not that objectors must receive that notification at least 14 days in advance. As a result we could see no evidence of the maladministration or service failure that Mr C alleged and did not uphold the complaint. When this report was first published on 21 September 2011, it was incorrectly categorised as being about West Lothian Council. This was due to an administrative error which we discovered on 22 September 2011, and for which we apologise. Related reading View Decision Report 201100846 as a PDF (15.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018