SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A about the development of a property near to Mr A's house. During the building works, the council was alerted to the possibility that the property was not being built in accordance with the planning permission. It was later established that the property was not built in accordance with the planning permission, and the council issued a section 33A notice (a form of enforcement action which requires a new planning application to be submitted for consideration). Mr C complained that the council had not taken action during construction when they were first made aware of the breach. Mr C also complained that the council had then not taken reasonable enforcement action once the breach was established. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. They concluded that it was reasonable of the council not to take any action during construction until they had established whether or not a breach had occurred. The adviser was also satisfied that the council had the discretion to choose whether to take enforcement action (which they did) and what form that it should take. Although the council did not intend to take any further enforcement action, this was a discretionary decision for the council to make. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201407178 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to the council that errors made in their planning procedures resulted in her loss of privacy when a boundary fence was not erected on the new development site next to her home as stated in the original plans and conditions. The council acknowledged the errors and waived the planning application fee so that Mrs C could raise the height of her own boundary wall. When she complained that she would be faced with the considerable cost of heightening her boundary to secure her privacy, the council had said they had done all they could and could not go back on a signed-off document. When we notified the council of our investigation, the council then referred Mrs C's case to their insurers and asked her to make a claim. With this attempt to consider financial redress, we closed our investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201407265 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son (Mr A) about recharges made for alterations and damage to a property when the tenancy ended. Mr and Mrs C had jointly signed the original tenancy agreement with the council in 1989. In 2008 they took on the care of a severely disabled foster child on behalf of the council, but had to move to a suitably adapted property. The tenancy agreement of the property they had lived in with Mr A was assigned from Mr and Mrs C to the joint names of Mr C and Mr A; the tenancy agreement was assigned again in 2009 solely to Mr A. The council deemed the property had been abandoned by Mr A in 2013 and levied recharges for various items, including the reinstatement of kitchen and bathroom fittings which had been put in by Mr and Mrs C prior to 2008. The council said that as the tenancy had been assigned to Mr A, he automatically became responsible for any damage caused. The tenancy agreement signed in 1989 stated that any damage caused by fault or neglect of tenants had to be either put right or the council would charge for doing so. In relation to alterations, the tenancy agreement stated that these had to have prior approval from the council, but did not make it clear what the consequences would be of not getting approval. The current tenancy agreement in use by the council states that unauthorised alterations should be removed, or the council would charge for doing so. Our investigation found that the tenancy agreement signed in 1989 did not make it clear that the council would regard unauthorised alterations as damage liable to recharge. We also found that opportunities had been missed in 2008 and 2009 to make Mr and Mrs C aware that the alterations they had made would be rechargeable; and to give Mr A the opportunity to say that he accepted the property, with the alterations, in 2009.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for four wind turbines near his home. He told us the council failed to respond to his letters before the case went to planning committee. We found that the council had replied reasonably and within a suitable timescale to Mr C's letters which postdated the committee meetings. We told Mr C that the council's obligation was to consider any material objection made to the application and that they were not obliged to respond to ongoing correspondence other than, as in this case, via the complaints handling procedure. We found that the council had followed the usual and agreed decision-making process. The case was heard by a planning committee which recommended planning approval be delegated to a senior planning officer. We found no evidence, as Mr C believed, that the council had extended its usual 28 day representations period to 90 days. We found evidence that Mr C's objections were properly taken account of within the decision-making process. Related reading View Decision Report 201404383 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about an unauthorised development immediately adjacent to her home. She said that in June 2013 work began in the field next to her house and it quickly became apparent that this was to develop a caravan site. A planning application was submitted for part of the site. In September 2013, the council issued a temporary stop notice with regard to the works and also obtained an interim interdict from the sheriff (a temporary court order stopping a particular course of action). Court proceedings began after the interdict was breached and a planning enforcement notice was issued. Thereafter, another planning application was made for the remainder of the site (for which no application had been made). No appeal was made against the council's enforcement notice which, therefore, took effect in December 2013. The compliance date expired in January 2014 without any action being taken against the developer. Then, in April 2014, both planning applications were withdrawn. Court proceedings against the alleged operator were dismissed in August 2014 and, the following month, two new planning applications were made for the site which were subsequently deemed to be invalid. Mrs C complained that although the opportunity existed for the council to take action and clear the site, they failed unreasonably to do so. As a consequence of the unauthorised works that have taken place, she said that her house and business have been detrimentally affected and her home is at risk from flooding. The council said that they took such breaches of planning control very seriously but that the situation next to her home was not straightforward; once the notice had expired which allowed time to appeal or comply, the only action remaining to the council was to remove the caravans and associated buildings by direct action. The council said they were considering this and developing a formal strategy to address the unauthorised development which they hoped would be in place by Jun

Mr and Mrs C live on a road that was closed following a landslide. They complained that this was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below their street, and felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. They also complained about the length of time taken by the council to reach a decision as to what to do with their road. We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided. Related reading View Decision Report 201401745 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives on a road that was closed following a landslide. He complained that the landslide was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below his street. Mr C felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. He also complained about the length of time the council took to decide what to do with the road. We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided. Related reading View Decision Report 201305403 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow proper planning procedures in allowing a developer to alter their masterplan (a plan that describes and maps an overall development concept, including present and future land use) after public consultation had been carried out. Mr C said that this had resulted in his land being included in the masterplan without his involvement. Mr C said that the council had approved the altered masterplan, which had placed him at risk of significant financial loss. He noted that a subsequent planning application he had made had been rejected, on the grounds that his land was not approved for residential development under the masterplan. The council said that their role was not to inform landowners of the provisions of the masterplan and that the onus was on the developer to show they had engaged with stakeholders. In this instance, the developer had provided evidence that they had contacted Mr C, but he had not responded. The council believed it was appropriate for them to have considered and approved the amended masterplan at the relevant committee meeting, which took place after the public consultation stage. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the masterplan process placed no obligations on the council to notify stakeholders who might be affected. He also said that the expectation under the masterplan process was that landowners who believed their interests might be affected would engage with the developer. He noted that the masterplan did not give the developer planning permission to carry out work, which required a separate, formal planning application. He said in his view the council had acted reasonably. In light of this, we found no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in their handling of the masterplan process. Related reading View Decision Report 201306074 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to formally inform him when a planning application was submitted for development on a neighbouring property. Mr C owned land, on which buildings relating to his business had been erected, next to the proposed development site. The council said that as there was land near to the planning site that did not contain obvious premises, an advert was placed in the local newspaper to fulfil their obligation to provide notification of the proposed development. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, and we found that the council's actions were reasonable and in line with the relevant guidance on neighbour notification. Related reading View Decision Report 201402169 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council did not do enough to sort out dampness in her former home, where she was their tenant. She said that it caused mould and that items of personal property were ruined because of this. She told us that she repeatedly reported dampness, but the situation did not improve and she eventually gave up her tenancy because of the problems. Our investigation found that the council had carried out work on the property when she first raised her concerns. They then arranged a survey, which showed a problem with condensation rather than dampness. As a result of this, they carried out more work. Although there was a delay in some of this being completed satisfactorily, the council had apologised and had taken action to complete it. Ms C disagreed that the problems related to condensation and had continuing concerns. The council carried out a further inspection and ordered other work to be done. However, Ms C left the property before this could happen. We did not uphold her complaint as, although she disagreed about the cause of the problem, we found that the council acted reasonably in trying to identify and address it. Related reading View Decision Report 201200401 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council delayed in notifying him of a rodent problem affecting his property. He also said that they did not give him enough notice before warning him that they might take legal action against him about pest control treatment and that they did not reasonably investigate his complaints. We found evidence that the council had told Mr C about the rodent problem within a reasonable timescale. Furthermore, we considered that their email warning him about possible legal action was reasonable, given that Mr C had told them he could not afford the cost of the treatment and did not know how to proceed. In terms of the handling of Mr C's complaint, we examined a significant amount of correspondence. We concluded that the council provided reasonable responses along with evidence to support their conclusions, and that this was provided within appropriate timescales. Related reading View Decision Report 201300798 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C objected to planning applications for a wind farm near their home. They then complained to the council that the planning service had not given appropriate consideration to the potential resulting impact on their amenity (enjoyment of their property or surroundings) from the wind turbines. Mr and Mrs C expressed particular concerns relating to the land they use for recreational activities as part of their property. The council explained that they had given appropriate consideration to protecting Mr and Mrs C’s amenity and that the land in question, although owned by Mr and Mrs C, did not appear, on the balance of probability, to have a lawful use as domestic curtilage (the essential garden ground for the property). We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the actions taken by the council were in line with relevant guidance and that their response to Mr and Mrs C’s concerns was reasonable. We also found that it was reasonable that the council did not consider Mr and Mrs C’s land’s use as amenity ground when considering a planning application for the wind farm. Related reading View Decision Report 201203264 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an adoption. They said that the council failed to alert them to legal issues that arose because of a change in legislation,and led to significant delay and expense. Mr and Mrs C also said that other prospective adopters had been treated differently and their adoptions had proceeded successfully. They said that they had been put under pressure about the way in which to progress the adoption. In investigating the complaint, we considered all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence, counsel's opinion and the council's adoption policy, and made further enquiries of the council. Our investigation found that much of the complaint hinged on the time taken by the court to release Mr and Mrs C's prospective daughter for adoption, and that this was a matter outside the council's control. Similarly, the council did not have control over other issues arising from the change in legislation. The council held particular views about the way to deal with these, with which Mr and Mrs C did not agree, but this was not in itself evidence of maladministration. Neither were the council responsible for the extra legal costs that occurred as a result of Mr and Mrs C's instructions to their solicitor. We noted that the council agreed to increase their usual financial contribution towards the legal fees in recognition of the difficult and different situation that had arisen. Overall, therefore, we did not find that the council had failed to take steps to expedite the adoption nor had they placed Mr and Mrs C under undue pressure. Related reading View Decision Report 201302949 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy that the council breached a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He told us that, because a council officer made wrong assumptions about which tree was to be felled, the council had granted permission for the felling of a healthy tree that was the subject of a TPO. Before Mr C brought his complaint to us, the council had acknowledged their error and apologised to him for it. However, Mr C said that the council had given him unsatisfactory and confusing responses to his complaint. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that the council had focused on inadequate explanations for the errors, instead of reviewing their procedures as they should have done. As the council appeared to have given more weight to defending their actions than to reviewing procedures, inconsistencies had then emerged in their responses to Mr C. The council had acknowledged that the wrong tree had been felled, and that the tree had not been properly identified before permission was given, which was a relatively serious mistake. The adviser had concerns that the complaint was not investigated thoroughly enough, especially as the deficiencies related to planning procedures. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council's investigation and complaints handling was inadequate and inconsistent.

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action over a number of breaches of planning conditions on a local site. Work on the site had stopped with only one of the planned houses completed. Mr C complained that the breaches of planning conditions had left the site unsafe, and that failing to enforce these conditions would set a precedent that allowed developers to ignore them without fear of enforcement. We took independent advice on this from our planning adviser. He confirmed that the council were correct when they told Mr C that they were entitled to exercise their discretion in deciding whether it was an appropriate use of resources to pursue a breach of planning conditions. The council also had to consider whether enforcement was in the public interest, and had to take into account government advice that developers struggling to complete works due to financial pressures should not be placed under an additional burden by enforcement action for technical breaches of planning conditions. Our investigation found that although the council had mistakenly said that one condition had been met fully when it had not, they had now taken enforcement action against the developer on this. The council were using their discretionary powers when considering whether or not to take enforcement action and had acted in accordance with Scottish Government guidance on planning enforcement. It was clear that there was no maladministration or service failure by the council and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201301570 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives in a small estate. When the council granted planning consent for the development they approved landscaping plans, and put in place a planning condition to control the date of completion of the landscaping and the replacement of diseased or damaged plants. They did not, however, include any provision for a scheme of maintenance. Mr C told us that some of the open space next to his home had not been landscaped, and he was concerned that other parts of the estate appeared to be getting a more frequent grass cut and related maintenance. He complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure that landscaping in the housing development was in accordance with approved plans. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, and we upheld the complaint. The adviser said that while one approved drawing had included a landscape maintenance schedule, this had not been included in any of the relevant consents and this had given rise to Mr C's complaint. Mr C wanted the council to take enforcement action, but this was not possible.

Ms C gave up her council tenancy in August 2012. Before she left, the council's clerk of works visited and pointed out damage to several doors which he said would need replacing. He advised it would be cheaper for her to arrange the work herself, which she did. After she left the property, she was told the work was not up to standard and was issued with a bill for the work. She queried this but got no reply. The bill was issued again, some seven or eight months later. She contacted the council again and then complained that she had been charged for these items and about the delay in contacting her about the bill. At the initial inspection of the property, Ms C had signed a declaration that she would repair the items identified, that the list was not exhaustive (ie that further repairs might be identified at the change of tenancy inspection) and that failure to undertake the repairs would result in the council carrying them out and billing her (this is known as recharging). The change of tenancy inspection that took place after she left the property identified a number of repairs, including to the work that Ms C had arranged and paid to have done. The council said that the work was not an acceptable standard and had required repair/replacement. They provided us with photographic evidence in support of this. They wrote to Ms C after the inspection setting out the rechargeable repairs, but it appeared that Ms C did not respond to this. It is not for us to question the council's decision about whether the work was done to an acceptable standard. That is a decision that they were entitled to take and we found no evidence of administrative error in the way they reached it. Ms C had signed the declaration and the council had written to her after the final inspection with a list of rechargeable repairs, which Ms C did not appear to have questioned at that time. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint but we did make a recommendation, as we considered tha

Mr C complained about the council’s handling of three planning applications. He said that the applicant had originally claimed that a number of people, including Mr C, supported all three applications. Mr C, however, said that he had supported only one (smaller) application. The police were still conducting an investigation into this when the council granted planning permission. Mr C questioned the transparency of the council’s decision. Our investigation found that the information about the level of support for the applications came to light after the planning reports were prepared and they had to be amended. However, the copies on the council’s website were not updated properly and so Mr C questioned whether or not the committee, when they decided to grant permission, had considered the accurate reports. The council acknowledged that their website was out of date and said that this was an administrative error. They said that this did not mean that the committee had considered out of date information and explained that the matter was specifically brought to the chair’s attention at the start of the meeting. They also explained that they had taken legal advice and were told that, on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty', the applications should be decided despite the ongoing police investigation. Although the council provided the original and updated paperwork, there was no documentary evidence that could confirm exactly what papers the committee had considered. In addition, the legal advice had been given verbally, so there was no documentary record of what had been said. Although we upheld Mr C’s complaint that incorrect information was made available online, we did not find that the council had unreasonably determined the applications. They had taken legal advice and, from an administrative perspective, took a decision that they were entitled to take (although we did recommend that they keep records of such advice in future).

Mr C complained that the council had not appropriately handled a planning application for an extension to an existing quarry. In particular, he complained that the public and neighbours to the site had not been suitably consulted and notified of the application, that the consent was at odds with an existing planning consent for the site, that the applicant had not provided all the information required and that he was not able to make representations in person to the planning committee. Our investigation found that the quarry has existing planning consent for mineral extraction and subsequent land fill. The application to which these complaints related was for an extension to the mineral extraction to one side of the area that already had consent for such extraction. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the application had been appropriately notified through the local press, and that neither an environmental impact assessment nor pre-application consultation was necessary. The adviser also noted that there were shortfalls in the site plan provided, but that this was probably because the council already had plans from a previous application. He said that the council had were not required to make all documents on an application publicly available, and the application had been dealt with appropriately in relation to the plans and information that were considered. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint, but we made a recommendation to the council to ensure they have all the plans required for future planning applications. The planning application was determined under delegated powers, and this meant that the council's planning committee were not required to consider the application. The process was conducted according to council policy, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that he should have been able to make representation to the committee.

Mr C entered into pre-application discussions with the council with a view to building a house behind his property. About three months later, after receiving an email from an area planning officer, Mr C submitted an application for planning consent. This was the subject of a 'report of handling' which, in terms of the council's procedures, was put before local councillors who had the ability to refer the matter to a committee for a decision. The councillors did not refer the application, and it was left to council officers to determine the application under delegated powers. They refused the application. Mr C could then have asked for the matter to be placed before the local review board, but before requesting this he complained to the council about the decision. He said that the council planning officers did not provide reasonable advice at the pre-application stage, and that the council's report of handling was not reasonably fit for purpose. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the pre-application advice given to Mr C was reasonable. The adviser also said that he was satisfied that the report of handling was reasonably fit for purpose. He noted that the council had admitted to one error but he agreed that this would not have altered the officers' recommendation for refusal or misled the councillors who might otherwise have called in the application to be decided by a committee. Related reading View Decision Report 201300094 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The council gave planning approval to Mrs C's neighbour to demolish a building and build a garage and boundary walls. Mrs C then complained that the council failed to protect her access to her property and a general right of way, and failed to take full consideration of the flood risk and consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). She also complained that they had earlier failed to take action when her neighbour had demolished the building (which Mrs C claimed to own) without planning permission. After taking independent advice from one or our planning advisers, we found that the council had acted reasonably. Mrs C had claimed that the walls effectively left her property land-locked. She also complained that they blocked a right of way used by pedestrians to access the foreshore. The council had approved the development based on the fact that there were many other lanes in the area with access to the foreshore, including one on the opposite side of Mrs C's property. They also said there was no recorded right of way on the lane, and they did not consider that it would be reasonable to establish one. Our view was that this was reasonable and proportionate. The council accepted that there is some sea flooding of the foreshore and nearby streets and lanes each year. However, the properties involved in the application had not been flooded and were outside the flood-risk area on SEPA's maps. The council considered whether the development would cause a material increase in properties at risk of flooding - this is the trigger for mandatory consultation with SEPA on a planning application. They asked their own flood prevention unit for advice, who said that as the development did not cause a material increase, consultation with SEPA was not required. This was confirmed by SEPA's senior planning adviser. After some adjustments to the plans to allow sea water to escape in the event of flooding, the application was approved. Our adviser conside

Mr C owns a house in the grounds of a former hospital. In considering an application for outline planning consent for the estate in 2000, the council considered that a design brief should be prepared for subsequent development, and this was later approved by the relevant committee. The council also decided to suspend permitted development rights in respect of proposals within the curtilage of dwellings (the land immediately around the houses). Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of subsequent applications and that they did not take enforcement action when wire fencing was erected in an area of amenity woodland immediately behind his home. He complained that the council had unreasonably delayed in dealing with planning issues since he first complained about the erection of fencing by a neighbour; inconsistently applied planning conditions and regulations to planning applications for urban fencing in a rural location: provided conflicting information about erecting fences within the woodland area; and failed to act in dealing with unauthorised fences there despite a prior commitment to take enforcement action. He also said that the council's planning service wilfully neglected to act on the findings of a recent relevant report by the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals and had made selective use in support of their failure to take action about unauthorised development. Our investigation upheld the first, second and fourth elements of Mr C's complaint as we found evidence of delay, inconsistency and a lack of thoroughness in considering some of these issues. We did not uphold the other complaints as we did not find evidence to support Mr C's view on these.

Mr C had wanted to build a house and garage. He attended two pre-application meetings with the council's planning officer and was advised that his proposals might be viewed favourably in accordance with a rule in the local development plan (LDP), which favoured development for organic growth within 400 metres of certain settlements in the local area. Encouraged by this information, Mr C arranged for his architect to draw up plans and submit a full planning application. However, the planning officer then told Mr C that he had been given incorrect information about the 400 metre rule, that the place where he wanted to build was not included in the list of places to which the rule applied and his proposed development could not, therefore, be approved. The council explained that this error had occurred due to a new LDP coming into effect around the time of Mr C's pre-application meeting and full details of the 400 metre rule not being known at that time. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's handling of his proposed development and sought reimbursement of the cost of preparing and submitting his planning application. Although there was never any suggestion that Mr C had been told his planning application would be approved, we acknowledged that the information provided at the pre-application meetings gave him the confidence to prepare and submit a full application. We found that the new LDP had come into effect several weeks prior to Mr C's first pre-application meeting. Although its content would still have been open to legal challenge at that stage, we considered that there was enough information available to the planning officer at that time to advise Mr C that his proposed development would not be approved under the 400 metre rule. We considered that Mr C and his architect also had a responsibility to familiarise themselves with the LDP, but under the circumstances did not find it reasonable for the council to charge him for the planning application or adv

Mrs C complained that a Local Review Board (LRB) set up to consider an appeal against refusal of a planning application was not properly constituted; that the minutes of the LRB meeting did not accurately reflect the what happened at the meeting; that the council did not adequately investigate her complaint about this; and that the council did not take appropriate action on the failings that their investigation found. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the LRB had been properly constituted under transitional arrangements put into place by the council. It took place about a month after an election at which some elected members who were trained to sit on LRBs were not returned to office or had retired. The transitional arrangements allowed all members who were trained to sit on the LRB, regardless of the ward they represented or whether there was more than one representative from a ward. We found that these arrangements were reasonable and that the LRB was both quorate (the required minimum number of people were there) and competent. Mrs C had also expressed concerns that the investigation into her complaint was conducted by a council employee, who might be biased in favour of their employer. Our investigation found the investigation was reasonable and appropriate and found no evidence of bias. We also found that the council took appropriate and robust remedial action where failings were identified. We did, however, uphold the complaint about the minutes of the meeting. These did not adequately reflect the information placed before the LRB or its decision. The meeting considered 14 separate applications, and the background papers ran to over 4,000 pages. The documentation for this particular application accounted for over half those pages, within which were 293 objections either to the original application or to the appeal. These were not indexed and no mention of them was made in the minutes. It was, therefore,

Mr C complained that the council had not allocated the correct number of housing points to his re-housing application. He thought that this had been done deliberately by either ignoring his application, or flagging it in order to obstruct it. As part of our investigation we reviewed the relevant legislation and the council's housing allocation policy, which is based on the legislation. We found no evidence that Mr C's application was not treated appropriately, equitably and according to the policy. We noted that certain factors that affect housing applications are discretionary (ie they are for the housing provider to decide), such as the condition of the property the applicant is living in when they apply, and whether an applicant has any medical needs, medical conditions or social needs that affect their housing requirements. As these are for the housing provider to decide, it is not for us to say whether the points the council allocated for any or all of these factors were correct in Mr C’s case. We can only investigate whether they had been taken into consideration. We found that, where appropriate in Mr C’s application, these discretionary factors had been considered. On non-discretionary factors, such as overcrowding and size of family, our investigation found that, based on the information supplied by Mr C on his housing application, the council had appropriately allocated points according to their policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201204079 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018