SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that his child had been bullied at school and that the response from the school and the council had been inadequate and inappropriate. Mr C said they had regularly reported incidents of bullying to the school but these had not been properly recorded. When they complained to the headteacher, Mr C said that their concerns were dismissed, and a subsequent investigation by the council's head of education had contained significant factual errors, which the council had failed to acknowledge or apologise for. The council maintained there was no evidence that bullying had taken place. They said Mr C had insisted on the exclusion of the pupils he considered responsible for bullying and that he was not prepared to accept any other outcome. They acknowledged there had been errors in the head of education's investigation, but suggested that the conclusions this investigation had reached remained sound. Our investigation found that the council were unable to supply adequate or accurate records. The investigation findings and complaint response from the council were not supported by the evidence available. The council also could not explain why statements had been made about what Mr C had insisted on as a resolution (exclusion of pupils) when these were not backed up by documentary evidence. It was noted, however, that the flaws in the investigation were due to a failure to follow the council's relevant policies and procedures (bullying and complaints handling) rather than evidence of systemic failings within the council's policies and procedures.

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council had failed to take reasonable action in response to their concerns about flooding at properties that belonged to their son and daughter. They said that the council had failed to meet their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The council had assessed the risk of flooding in the relevant area and had issued two options to property owners to resolve the matter. They considered that one of these would cost more than the other and told residents that if that option was chosen, they would require the properties benefitting from this work to come to an agreement to share the additional cost beyond the cost of the cheaper option. The residents failed to reach an agreement and, consequently, no work was carried out. The council have discretion in relation to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Under our legislation, we can check that a council has followed the correct process. However, if the decision was made properly, we cannot question or change it. We found that the council had delayed in dealing with some of Mr and Mrs C's correspondence. Although we said that these delays were unacceptable, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for this and had taken steps to try to prevent problems of a similar nature occurring. The council had also tried to resolve the matter by presenting two options to residents and we found that this was reasonable. We considered that the council had acted reasonably in relation to their duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201203283 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Since 2011, Mrs C had been raising issues with the council about the damage caused to her boundary fence by the council's grass-cutting contractor. Although her complaints were referred directly to the contractor, she received no response. The damage to her fence continued each year, and each year she contacted the council to complain about the work of the contractor. In September 2014, she complained again when the contractor's machine slipped down a bank beside her fence which was further damaged when the machine was pulled out. She complained again at a later date and a claim was submitted to the contractor who did not uphold her claim, stating that the fence was in a very poor condition. Mrs C escalated her complaint to the council, and they investigated but did not uphold her complaint. Our investigation considered all the communication between Mrs C and the council, the council's records of their contact with Mrs C, and the complaints handling procedure. We found that, although it was not possible to assess whether the fence had been damaged by the contractor, the council had not ensured that the contractor had provided an adequate level of service and had not dealt reasonably with her complaints.

Mrs C complained to the council that her child's school had not reasonably addressed reports of bullying or provided support to her child. The council investigated and found that there was no evidence that bullying had taken place or that this was the cause of the anxiety and stress that her child was suffering from. Mrs C was unhappy and brought her complaint to us. Our investigation found that the council did not consider the incidents to be bullying as the other pupil involved had significant additional support needs which caused their behaviour towards Mrs C's child. We considered that this was in line with the anti-bullying policy in place at the time. We also found that the school was small and that, although it was clear that steps had been taken to keep the children apart, this was difficult to achieve. There was evidence that support had been provided to Mrs C's child for his specific needs, including the difficult relationship with the other pupil. However, we considered that the council had inappropriately made reference to Mrs C's relationship with the school in their complaint report rather than centring on her child. We found evidence of an incident between the children that had not been included in the Council's report and considered that this did not provide reassurance that all matters had been included when assessing Mrs C's concerns. We also considered that there was no evidence that the school had assessed the potential impact on Mrs C's child before proposing a strategy to inform visiting staff of the difficulties in the class. Finally, we found that the council's complaint investigation had not fully considered the impact of the situation at the school on Mrs C's child in terms of their anxiety and stress. On balance, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with flooding risk to her croft and an adjacent new development. She said that a developer came onto the croft without permission, and upgraded a pipe (which drained his field into their drainage system) with a larger size pipe. The developer then applied for permission for a new development, including a surface water drain using the new pipe. Mrs C objected to the application on the basis that the drain would not be able to cope with the volume of water from the development. The council's road services agreed, and the developer amended the application. The council approved the amended application, although Mrs C still thought the system would not be effective. After the development started, the site flooded several times. Mrs C reported this to the council, who negotiated with the developer. It was agreed that the council would carry out works to reduce the upstream catchment area, and the developer would undertake further remedial works if a flooding problem remained. The council carried out their works, and the developer undertook some works to protect the new development, including taking steps to divert overland water onto Mrs C's croft, and deepening the drainage ditch on her land (without permission). However, the croft and development site flooded again a few years later. Although the council asked the developer to carry out remedial works as agreed, they refused. The council then said that they were not able to enforce the agreement with the developer, and suggested that Mrs C pay to upgrade the drainage system if she was concerned about flooding. After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We found that the council had dealt with the original application in line with planning requirements, and the issue of the developer working on Mrs C's land was a private matter between them. We also found that the council had acted within their powers to ma

Mr C complained that the council had acted unreasonably by refusing grant funding and registration for a tenants and residents association. After discussing this with him, we found it appeared that the council had not fully explained how they had reached their decision. We, therefore, decided that in the first instance it would be appropriate for Mr C and the council to meet in an effort to resolve some of his complaints. The council and Mr C agreed to meet and we closed his complaint to allow this to happen. Mr C subsequently complained, however, that he was unhappy with the council's explanation. We investigated and upheld two of his complaints, as we found that there was unreasonable delay in processing the tenants and residents association's application for a grant, and there were failures in communication. We did not find it necessary to make recommendations, as the council had already apologised to Mr C and taken action to try to avoid this happening again. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint of discrimination in the decision not to award a grant. Related reading View Decision Report 201400115 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council issued a notice saying that work needed to be carried out urgently to preserve a listed building that he had agreed to buy. The council then arranged for the work to be carried out and charged the owners for the costs. When Mr C later bought the property, the sale included a clause that meant that any costs that the council pursued against the previous owners could be recovered from him. Mr C considered that the council should have allowed the sale to proceed and should have then given him time to arrange for the work to be carried out. We found that it was reasonable for the council to issue the notice and to arrange for the work to be carried out when they did. The sale of the listed building had not been completed, and its condition was deteriorating. Without urgent council intervention, there would have been nothing to prevent further deterioration and damage. He was also unhappy as he believed that the council had not issued the notice correctly, but we did not find evidence that anything was wrong in this. Mr C also complained about the advice the council gave him about his planning application in relation to the building. He said that he followed their advice and submitted the application, but this was refused. We found, however, that the application he had submitted was for more extensive development than he had previously discussed with the council. There was no evidence that the council had provided him with incorrect advice. Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not given him and the previous owners adequate advice about obtaining grants to restore the property. We found, however, that the council had provided adequate, timely and appropriate advice about grants both to him and to the previous owners. Related reading View Decision Report 201305166 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about the council's involvement in a investigation by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) into possible benefit fraud. Mr A was unhappy that the council had been involved in the investigation and had attended interviews with an officer from the DWP when he was not in receipt of council tax or housing benefit. He was also unhappy about how council staff had spoken to him when he attended for an interview at council offices, and with the accuracy of two sets of notes from one of the interviews and about the handling of his complaint. During our investigation the council confirmed that their officer should not have been involved in the interviews as Mr A was not in receipt of council tax or housing benefit, and that they had apologised to Mr A for their handling of this. They had also explained to him what they had done to try to ensure a similar situation did not occur in the future. As it was clear that the officer should not have attended the interviews with Mr A we upheld this complaint. The council had also apologised for the service Mr A received when he attended their offices, and again explained the action taken as a result of his complaint. Given the poor level of service Mr A had received we also upheld this complaint. Because the council had already taken action on the issues, however, we did not make any recommendations. We did not uphold Mr A's other complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had addressed his concern about the accuracy of the minutes and had explained why two sets of notes for the same meeting had some differences. We also found that they had considered Mr A's representations and provided reasonable responses to the issues he had raised. Related reading View Decision Report 201305427 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about development at a caravan park near his home. He complained that two lodges at the site did not meet the criteria to be treated as caravans and felt that these should have required planning permission. Mr C said that the council had failed to allow the planning system to run its course and had been negligent in not requiring a planning application for the earthworks for the lodges (they were located on a steep hillside). Mr C complained that the local plan for the area had not been taken into account and that the council had unreasonably included provision for 14 new stances at the site when granting a new site licence for the caravan park. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had determined that the lodges did not meet the definition of a caravan but that the decision on whether to take action was a discretionary matter. The council took the view that no planning purpose would be served by taking enforcement action and we received advice that this was a reasonable decision taken following due consideration. Similarly, we found that the council's decision to accept the earthworks at the site as permitted development to be reasonable. We received advice that as this was a decision that the council was entitled to make which they duly considered, it could only be challenged by judicial review. We found that there was nothing to suggest that the local plan had not been taken into consideration. Finally, we were advised that the inclusion of 14 new stances in the site licence fell within the planning scope established by a certificate of lawful use or development issued by the Scottish Government. Related reading View Decision Report 201400128 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C sold their property but established that a part of an extension to the property was built on land not under their ownership. They approached the council with a request to purchase the land as they thought that the land may be common good land. Their solicitors advised the council that this matter was urgent as the sale of the property had already gone through. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that there was then a delay of a few months before the council determined that the land was not in common good ownership. In responding to the complaint, the council advised that they were told by Mr and Mrs C's solicitor that this was common good land and, in order to speed up the sale, they immediately sought approval, through the appropriate procedure, to obtain councillors' agreement to the sale. Once this was obtained, and a price negotiated, and agreed, with Mr and Mrs C's solicitor, the council then asked their solicitor to conclude the sale. At this stage, the council's solicitor established that the land was not common good and Mr and Mrs C's solicitor was provided with information of the current owners. Although the council accepted that, in hindsight, they could have identified the ownership earlier, they said that they were asked to arrange the sale of land which was held in the common good and they did so. They were also of the view that it was for Mr and Mrs C to establish title of their property before proceeding with a sale. We considered the evidence. This clearly showed that Mr and Mrs C's solicitor was of the view that this was common good land and that they did not approach the council for clarification of title, they asked to buy the land. As responsibility for clarifying title rests with Mr and Mrs C's solicitor, and as we found no evidence of administrative failing in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201405491 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council did not meet her child's additional support needs at school. She was also unhappy about how they handled her complaint. Our investigation found that while the school recognised that Mrs C's child had additional support needs and that support was provided, there had been a complete breakdown in the relationship between Mrs C and the school. Because of this, the issue of whether appropriate support was being provided was never going to be resolved. Mrs C had clearly lost confidence in the service and support provided by the school, and had a genuine belief that it was failing to meet her child's needs. Mrs C, therefore, had a right to be made aware of the alternative dispute resolution provision available under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, where there is a complaint that a school is not meeting a pupil's additional support needs. This includes access to independent mediation and adjudication, and an appeal to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland. The council did eventually offer Mrs C access to mediation (which they should have offered sooner) but we found no evidence that they made her aware of her rights under the legislation as they should have done. We also found that there were occasions when Mrs C's child went home from school during the day but these were not recorded as an exclusion from school as they should have been (in accordance with the council's school exclusion policy). Accounts of incidents at the school involving Mrs C's child were also not recorded at the time they occurred. The council had acknowledged delay in responding to Mrs C’s complaint, for which they had apologised and advised her what they had done as a result of this. We were satisfied that they had taken appropriate action to address this part of the complaint. However, Mrs C had also raised concerns about her child being bullied. Given the seriousness of Mrs C's allegations, in particular th

Mr C's neighbour constructed an extension to their house, which encroached on Mr C's land. Mr C alerted the council to this, and planning enforcement had visited the site. The council took the view that enforcement action would be inappropriate, and then accepted an amendment to the building warrant originally issued for the extension. As the extension as built complied with the amended warrant, the council granted a certificate of completion. Mr C objected to this on the grounds that it allowed a building which did not comply with the original plans to be constructed and then approved retrospectively, regardless of whether it had been built on land belonging to someone else. Mr C complained that the council's response was inadequate, and that it would have been appropriate for them to have taken more direct enforcement action. Although the council did not take enforcement action, they did place the property on the register of planning enforcement, which is a record of breaches of planning control. Our planning adviser said that the council had acted in accordance with recognised planning custom and practice. He said that enforcement was a discretionary power, and that the council was entitled to take a view on whether the breach of planning conditions was so great that they should require the extension to be pulled down. The adviser also noted that keeping the property on the register of planning enforcement would have consequences for the property owners should they wish to sell their property. He did not consider that the council could be accused of taking no action in this case. He also said that the submission of amended documentation to regularise the planning situation was appropriate and that the council would not have been entitled to refuse these amendments or accept the subsequent completion certificate. We found that the council had acted reasonably and appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201400298 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 1

Mr C had carried out some work in an area of amenity ground immediately behind his house. The council took the view that this gave the ground the appearance of a garden and an extension of his own land. They said that this was contrary to the terms of the planning consent for the housing development where he lived. He was required to return the land to its previous condition. Mr C complained to us and said that other residents had done similar works to the land behind their gardens but that action had not been taken against them. He believed that the council were not applying planning rules fairly. We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation showed that the ground concerned was amenity space to which members of the public required access. Mr C had done some works there which, after they were brought to their attention, the council inspected. They said that the work gave the impression of a private garden and so discouraged members of the public from accessing it, and that although other residents had placed picnic tables in the area, these did not affect public enjoyment or access. This was the professional opinion of council officers and as such the council were entitled to be guided by it. There was no evidence that Mr C was not treated fairly because the circumstances relating to the ground in this particular case were different. Related reading View Decision Report 201304375 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a council committee had gone beyond its remit under the council's scheme of delegation. He said that when considering whether to sell or rent out a property, the committee had altered a council officer's proposals and then approved those alterations. Our investigation concluded that the committee's actions had not gone beyond their remit, and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201302289 as a PDF (10.76 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C contacted the council to complain about an elected member. He was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained about this to them. Mr C remained dissatisfied. He complained to us that the council had not dealt reasonably with his phone contact, had not reasonably responded to his complaints and had deliberately included errors in contact details that they supplied to him. We found that the phone contact had been reasonable and that there was no evidence that the errors in contact details provided were deliberate. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council's response to his complaint was not reasonable, but did not consider that they needed to take any further action in relation to this. Related reading View Decision Report 201304892 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C phoned the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team to ask about applying for a crisis grant. The call handler said that he was not eligible because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C then complained because he felt the call handler did not deal with his enquiries properly. In responding to the complaint, the council said they were sorry that Mr C was unhappy with the service, but confirmed that because he was not in receipt of an appropriate qualifying benefit, he was not eligible. In response to our enquiries, the council told us that they did not process a claim for Mr C because it was clear he did not meet the relevant criteria for a crisis grant. They also said that, since then, the Scottish Government had relaxed the eligibility criteria and if he was now to apply with similar circumstances, they might be able to consider his application. We checked the Scottish Government guidance that was in place when Mr C contacted the council. This confirmed that those applying for a crisis grant should normally be in receipt of certain benefits. However, the guidance also said that the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant was the severity of the applicant's circumstances and the likely impact on them and their family. It also said that if an applicant was not in receipt of qualifying benefits, the council could make an exception to the requirement for this if they were satisfied that the person had no other means of support, and an award would avoid serious damage or risk to the health or safety of them or their family. We found that in saying that Mr C was not eligible for a crisis grant the council effectively made a decision on his request. In addition, when the Scottish Government clarified the guidance, they did not relax the criteria. The guidance in place when Mr C contacted the council clearly said that the key test of eligibility was the need of the individual, not whether they were in receipt of a qualifying benefit, and that t

Ms C complained to the council about the actions of council planning officers during consideration of an application she had submitted for permission in principle to build a new dwelling house on her property. She complained that an officer had invented a requirement about the distance the proposed development required to be from her neighbour's boundary, that the reasons given for refusal had not been mentioned in pre-application advice that she had received and that the reasons were not relevant to an application for 'in principle' planning permission. She was dissatisfied with the responses she received and complained to us. Our investigation found that some of the issues she raised were not addressed. We took the view that the council had not provided full responses to her concerns, and upheld the complaint.

Ms C had had to leave her accommodation, and was looking for a tenancy, when she learned that she was pregnant. The council provided short-term accommodation and assessed her as being unintentionally homeless, in priority need with a local connection and entitled to settled accommodation. Meanwhile, she was offered temporary accommodation. After her child was born Ms C received two offers of permanent housing, one from the council and one from a housing association. She refused both. The council did not accept that Ms C’s refusal of the second offer was reasonable. However, because of issues in handling her appeal, they, unusually, made a further offer, which Ms C also refused. The council again regarded her grounds of refusal to have been unreasonable. They said that they had discharged their duty to Ms C as a homeless person and that she would have to leave the temporary accommodation. She complained to us that the council had failed to take appropriate account of the representations she made in appealing the third offer. Our investigation found, however, that the council had given full consideration to Ms C’s representations. In particular, they had ensured that these had been properly assessed, by both an external agency and by them, using a multi-agency assessment matrix. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint, but in view of her circumstances, we did make a recommendation.

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council did not follow the correct procedure when making their decision on a school planning application, which included a biomass boiler. They had concerns about the health implications, and said that the council did not appropriately take account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations. They also complained about the handling of their complaint. There were environmental issues relating to this planning application, and the council explained that assessment of the application involved two key material considerations – the impact on the amenity of the area and local residents, in particular the visual impact, and the extent to which the facility complied with the guidance and regulations governing the operation and function of biomass boilers and associated emissions. The council also took into account the impact on residential amenity by reason of noise. The council explained that appropriate conditions were included on the planning permission and separate legislation is available to monitor emissions and noise. In investigating this complaint we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He was satisfied that there were no procedural irregularities, with the exception of an oversight over the stack height. He pointed out, however, that a further assessment makes it clear the proposal falls well within the tolerances for control of emissions from such a stack. He confirmed that there are no grounds under planning policy and procedure for rejecting the biomass plant and stack application on health grounds. Health protection is not a material planning consideration unless there is specific planning guidance on the matter, especially where there are other regulatory frameworks in place to deal with the health impacts. He also noted that the council have policies for the use of biomass as a heating source for schools and that it is clear that the health consequences are not something they would

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of his client (Mr A), about a planning application for an extension to an existing waste water treatment plant. Mr A lives close to the treatment plant, for which the council granted planning consent. He complained that the council failed to handle the application properly or effectively and had not taken steps to address his concerns or remedy defects that he had identified. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had taken Mr A's objections into account when processing the application. We were also satisfied that there was no evidence of any fault in the handling of the application. However, we noted that the council had accepted that they failed to provide reasons for their decision to grant the application when they issued their decision notice, and had issued an amended notice attaching a copy of the planning report to explain the reasons for the decision. We were concerned that this meant that an interested party would have to read a number of pages to try to and elicit the specific reasons for the decision. We did not consider that this was a reasonable remedy to the original error in the decision notice, and upheld this complaint. As we were, however, generally satisfied that the council's revised procedures have addressed these failings, we made one recommendation to clarify the information on this decision.

The owners of the yard next to Mr C's house submitted a planning application for the replacement and relocation of their boiler house and drying kilns. Mr C complained that, although the application was approved with conditions attached to the permission, the council failed to enforce those conditions. He said that as a consequence he had suffered horrendous noise levels. Mr C alleged that the council failed to assess the impact of the planning consent on his home, failed to follow the correct procedures and pursue enforcement action, and failed to assess his subsequent complaint properly. The complaint was investigated and we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We made further enquiries of the council, and gave all the relevant information (including planning documentation and all the complaints correspondence) careful consideration. The planning adviser said that the council acted reasonably and early by ensuring that a noise impact assessment report was obtained for the proposed development and was reflected in the conditions attached to the planning permission. When some of the conditions were not met, the council considered taking enforcement action but decided that it would be more appropriate to have their environmental health department lead on the matter of noise nuisance. The planning adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable decision, as enforcement action is discretionary and the environmental health department could use statutory measures to address matters that might otherwise be outside the scope of the planning authority. He noted that the council had retained the option of taking enforcement action should they wish to pursue it in the future. Mr C undoubtedly suffered noise nuisance and we found that the council acted on his complaints about this, although not in the way he would have wished. We did not uphold his complaint, as it could not be said that they did not understand his complaint or failed properly t

Mr C complained about the council's handling of planning consents for a site next to his property. Four different consents were approved, including permission for the developer to have a static caravan on the site during construction work. However, the developer kept a caravan on site, in the wrong location, without carrying out any of the approved work. Mr C complained that the council failed to use their enforcement powers to have the caravan removed. He also complained that the council deliberately delayed in responding to his correspondence. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who explained that enforcement action cannot be taken about planning conditions until such time as the relevant consent is implemented by work starting on the site. As no work had started, it was questionable whether there were any grounds to take enforcement action. Despite this, the council served an enforcement notice requiring removal of the caravan by September 2015. Mr C was dissatisfied with this, as the original consent required the caravan to be removed by December 2012. However, as the caravan was allowed on site during construction, and the developer had until September 2015 to commence construction work (which is when the consent expires), we were satisfied that the council had reached a fair and reasoned decision. We were also satisfied that the council responded to Mr C's correspondence in reasonable time. Related reading View Decision Report 201204604 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for a proposed road development. He was concerned about the environmental report used in public consultation. He considered it to have been unclear and inaccurate, and said that the council should re-run the consultation. Mr C was also concerned that the environmental report did not take into account issues such as potential flooding and noise. He said that the council had also exaggerated the negative impact of one of the options to ensure that it was not selected. We found that the council had taken Mr C's comments into account. They amended the report to reflect his comments about inaccuracies and corrected typographical errors. They also took steps to ensure clearer map information in the revised report. The council consulted with the appropriate agencies before preparing the report and we were, therefore, satisfied that they had included the necessary environmental issues in it. We also noted that the SEA was only one part of a process of environmental reviews to be carried out. While we noted the option Mr C favoured, and the amendments to this option that he suggested, we also took account of the council's statement that a number of options were selected at an earlier stage, using similar processes. We found no evidence to support his view that the council deliberately tried to ensure that this option had a higher environmental impact than necessary. Related reading View Decision Report 201202845 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to properly investigate his complaints about what he considered to be dangerous fuel handling and storage by a boat operator at the local harbour. He complained that the council had sufficient evidence to show that the boat operator was storing large quantities of fuel at the harbour in inappropriate containers, and was not taking reasonable steps to ensure safe refuelling of his vessels. We examined the evidence and found that the council were actively investigating the reports. They had reminded the boat operator of his responsibilities in terms of fuel safety and were monitoring the situation through the CCTV system. The council also prepared a code of conduct which they expect all boat operators to follow, and were in the process of recruiting a seasonal harbour master to monitor both adherence to the code of conduct and boat safety. As a result of the steps taken by the council, we were satisfied they had acted appropriately following receipt of Mr C's concerns about the unsafe handling of fuel. Related reading View Decision Report 201203874 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C viewed a newly built rural property and, after the vendor (who was also the builder) presented a certificate of completion and a home report, Mrs C bought the house. On entry, she found numerous defects. Her solicitors and, later, two Members of the Scottish Parliament got in touch with the council about these on her behalf. Mrs C then decided to sell the property for much less than she had paid. A financial claim was made to the council on her behalf, but their loss adjustors refused it. Mrs C complained to us that the council inappropriately failed to follow relevant legislation and procedures when they issued the certificate of completion. The council accepted, with qualification, that the officer responsible for inspecting the building and issuing the certificate had been at fault in doing so. Specifically, two matters were overlooked when the building standards officer carried out an inspection in January 2010, when there was a significant amount of snow lying on the ground. The council had apologised to Mrs C for this, but said that the vast majority of the defects about which she was unhappy related to the quality of the workmanship, which is not relevant to the issuing of a completion certificate. We noted this, but as the council had admitted errors, we upheld Mrs C’s complaint, and made a recommendation.