SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C said that a social work services complaints review panel had made several recommendations setting out action to be taken by social work services concerning her son and grandchild. She complained that the council failed to implement three of the recommendations. The evidence supplied by the council showed that they had in fact implemented the disputed recommendations, but we had concerns that they were unable to provide documentary evidence to support all of their actions. When we raised these concerns, the council told us that they had recently formalised how they keep track of actions to be taken following recommendations made at a panel, and from 1 April 2014 introduced plans for improved recording of actions and learning. As they had already put in place an appropriate process, we did not make any formal recommendation on this. We were also concerned that the council did not currently update complainants about actions taken following panel recommendations, unless they specifically asked for this. During our contact with them about the case, the council said they may consider in future notifying complainants, either verbally or in writing, when panel recommendations have been carried out. We told them that we would welcome this change. Related reading View Decision Report 201305160 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C live in a housing association property. There was a history of noise and other antisocial behaviour from neighbours, and Mr and Mrs C had reported this many times. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council, who were partners in a protocol along with the association, did not respond reasonably to reports of noise nuisance over an 18-month period. They also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to a letter expressing dissatisfaction with how their complaint had been dealt with. A local councillor had earlier raised Mr and Mrs C's concerns with the association and with council officers, and asked if noise monitoring equipment might be provided in their home. Mr and Mrs C were, however, asked to contact the police when noise nuisance arose and noise monitoring equipment was not provided until after they had formally complained to the council. We did not, however, uphold this complaint because the council explained why they had not installed the equipment, and we found that their actions had otherwise been reasonable. We also found that the council had handled Mr and Mrs C's complaint appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201302076 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C originally submitted a complaint to us in June 2012 (case 201201234) about development at a holiday park. We issued a decision in February 2013, upholding that complaint. Mr C then made a related follow-up complaint (case 201302324) to us. In this, he complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow the correct policies and procedures in relation to the landscaping consent conditions on a planning application, enforce the consent conditions, and follow their own policy about a regional scenic area. Mr C has since made a further related complaint (case 201304125) that the council delayed in responding to information about unauthorised excavation works and failed to investigate reports of unauthorised development. We, therefore, decided to close case 201302324 and to merge it with case 201304125. These complaints will be reported on together. Related reading View Decision Report 201302324 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C objected to a planning application submitted to the council for an extension to a building. He complained to us that the council refused to accept his further representations but allowed the applicant to make some, which he thought was unfair. We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the further submissions from the applicant appeared to have been considered as supporting information, and did not change the nature of the proposal. Mr C also complained that the council's system for providing public online access to planning documents was faulty, and that it continued to be a problem. Our investigation found that the council had not failed to provide relevant information online, but we suggested that it might be beneficial for them to look at whether their planning portal could be improved. We did find that they failed to acknowledge and respond to an email that Mr C had sent about his complaint.

Mrs C's council tax benefit claim was identified for review and the council wrote to her asking for information. Mrs C complained about the way they handled the claim, complaining that they had not administered it in line with the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006. She questioned the frequency with which she was being asked to provide payslips, and said she thought that it would be easier to calculate once a year using her P60 and business accounts, in line with the Regulations. She told us that after she complained before, there had been an agreement that she would be assessed every 12 months, but the council had now cancelled the benefit because she questioned why they wanted payslips so frequently. She also questioned why the claim was identified for a review, and the notice period for providing information. After investigating her concerns, we were satisfied that the council's actions were reasonable and in line with the Regulations and the Department for Work and Pensions best practice guidance. We saw no evidence that anything went wrong in the council's handling of the claim, and considered it was reasonable in the circumstances for the council to request proof of earnings when they did, within the deadlines they did, and that they had explained on a number of occasions why they were doing this. We found that the council took Mrs C's concerns seriously, fully investigated, took appropriate action to try to resolve her complaint, and fully explained their position. Finally, we were satisfied that the council maintained adequate records in connection with the administration of the claim when she complained before Related reading View Decision Report 201300408 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The council had approved a planning application for a new house on a site close to Mr C's home, although the application was subject to certain planning conditions. Mr C complained that since then the council had failed to enforce a condition about a landscaping scheme. He also complained that they had not properly dealt with his complaints about this. Our investigation found that although Mr C was unhappy about it, the council had taken adequate steps to enforce the condition about which he was concerned, so we did not uphold his complaint about that. However, we also found that when he complained to them, the council did not deal with his complaint in accordance with their procedures, as they took too long to respond.

Mr C complained about the way in which the council handled his complaint about a planning matter. We found that the council failed to deal with the subject of his complaint at the earlier stages of the complaints procedure. When they did finally respond to the matter he was complaining about, they acknowledged some, but not all, of their failings and apologised to Mr C for them. However, in later correspondence, the council appeared to change their position and said that they regarded the first stage response to the complaint as their final response on the matter. We concluded that the council’s handling of this matter was confusing and of poor quality, and upheld Mr C’s complaint.

Mr C raised his concern about the planning situation at a neighbouring site. Planning permission had been granted in 2000 for a new workshop there, but during its construction his neighbour had continued to work out of a wooden shed. Mr C was concerned that the council had failed to take effective enforcement action in relation to industrial processes being carried out in the shed, which continued after the new workshop was completed. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had investigated his concerns and had decided not to take enforcement action. Following completion of the new workshop Mr C's neighbour voluntarily decided to submit a retrospective planning application in relation to the wooden shed. Permission was refused because it would have an adverse impact upon residential amenity. We recognised that Mr C had reasonably expected the council to take enforcement action following the refusal of this application. However, they could not do so as the shed had by that time been in continuous use for more than ten years and so was exempt from enforcement action. We also found that the council had investigated complaints about noise from the shed, but had decided to take no action as they had been unable to establish that it was a statutory noise nuisance. Although we did not uphold the complaint, we were concerned that because the council had not applied a time limit condition to the original planning consent, it took over ten years for the workshop to be completed, and was then too late for enforcement action about the shed. Because of this we made recommendations.

Mrs C complained to us that the council took too long to acknowledge and respond to a complaint that she had made to them. She said that they had not properly explained how different parts of her complaint were going to be handled, and failed to respond to one of her complaints altogether. Our investigation found that there was a delay in Mrs C's complaint being logged with the correct team and we upheld that complaint, but we did not find any unreasonable delays in responding to the issues Mrs C had raised. This was a complex and multi-faceted complaint, different elements of which needed different responses and actions. However, we found that the council had not properly and fully explained to Mrs C how some issues would be dealt with, and we upheld her complaint about this. We agreed that they had not responded to one complaint but decided that this had been reasonable in the circumstances. Related reading View Decision Report 201201810 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C said that in June 2012 a building control officer inspected on-going works to their home extension and verbally told them that the walls complied with building regulations. As a result of this they continued construction. At a further inspection in August, however, some of the works that Mr and Mrs C believed had already been inspected were found not to comply with the approved plans and building regulations. Mr and Mrs C complained about this, saying that, had they known about the problem after the earlier visit, they would have stopped construction until it was resolved. Our investigation found that the June inspection was solely for the purpose of reviewing the build to the open drain and sub-structure of the extension and did not involve the walls. We also noted that the building control officer wrote to Mr and Mrs C's agent immediately after the August inspection to notify them that aspects of the build did not comply with approved plans and building regulations. It is the developer's responsibility to construct their development in accordance with the approved plans. The inspection process is not designed to control work on site but simply to examine whether a particular stage of the build being inspected is constructed in accordance with building regulations. As responsibility for ensuring that the build was in accordance with the approved plans fell to Mr and Mrs C, and as the June inspection was solely for the purpose of examining the open drain and sub structure, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201203650 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives close to a holiday chalet park. The park was first granted planning consent in 1985 but various amendments were later granted. In July 2010 the operator submitted an application to the council for retrospective planning consent. This was granted in March 2011, subject to four conditions. In October 2011, Mr C contacted the council’s planning services, complaining that the park operator had delayed in complying with three of the four conditions and about an error in the other condition. Six months later, dissatisfied with the council's lack of action, Mr C tried to pursue a complaint through the council's corporate complaints procedure. He was dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint, and complained to us. At that time further matters of alleged unauthorised activity at the chalet park had arisen, but as Mr C had not pursued these with the council as a complaint, we could not look at those. Our investigation upheld all three of Mr C's complaints, namely that there had been: unreasonable delay or failure to enforce planning conditions; a failure to adequately respond to Mr C's complaints and an unreasonable failure to investigate Mr C's subsequent complaints adequately. We upheld the last complaint because we found that Mr C's complaint to the council had not been dealt with. This was because the council had said that their corporate complaints procedures excluded matters about live planning applications, although this was not the case here.

Mr and Mrs C's property flooded on two occasions, once in 2009 and again in 2011. There was some uncertainty as to whether the flood water was rain or river water, however, as it was flowing onto their property via the public highway, they felt the council were responsible for taking action to prevent this. We identified that, in responding to the flooding reports, the council had surveyed the situation and taken steps to try to assist. We noted that they had attempted to have a neighbouring land owner address his private drainage system and they also carried out some clearance and repair works on the surrounding drainage. Following this, they were satisfied that the road drainage was fit to cope with normal conditions. The council highlighted that responsibility for protecting their property from flooding lay with Mr and Mrs C and they offered advice on further steps they could consider taking to reduce the flood risk. The recently enacted flood prevention legislation requires the council to carry out clearance and repair works on bodies of water where they feel that this will substantially reduce the risk of flooding. In this instance, they were not persuaded that further clearance and repair works alone would substantially reduce this risk. This was a matter that the council were entitled to decide, and we cannot look at such a decision unless there is evidence of something going wrong in the way in which it was taken. We were satisfied that the council appropriately investigated Mr and Mrs C's concerns and took what we considered to be reasonable action to try to assist. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201200956 as a PDF (11.47 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy because the name of their property appeared in documents that were part of the council's local development plan (a document that says what type of development should take place where, and identifies areas that should not be developed). They said that no-one asked their permission before doing this, nor were they given any warning beforehand. They were unhappy, because they felt that the council's actions went against legislation and guidance, and told us that they felt this had affected the value of their property. When our planning adviser looked at the information provided both by Mr and Mrs C and the council, he found that the council had acted satisfactorily and followed appropriate guidance. Our investigation found that the council did not need to obtain Mr and Mrs C's permission, or give them prior warning about this, so we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103475 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C left their dogs at a kennels for two and a half weeks. When they collected the dogs they found that one of them was in poor physical condition, and later had to be put to sleep. The kennels were privately owned, and were subject to an annual licence issued by the council. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to adequately deal with their complaints about the kennels within a reasonable timescale that would allow a prosecution. They said that the council failed to regulate the kennels appropriately and to adequately carry out their duties in terms of relevant animal welfare legislation. In addition, Mr and Mrs C complained that the council did not deal adequately with their complaint about the council’s handling of the matter. We upheld one of Mr and Mrs C’s complaints - that the council failed to adequately deal with their complaints about the kennels. We found from looking at the evidence that Mr and Mrs C’s concerns were taken seriously, their anecdotal evidence was recorded and considered, and was weighed against evidence that the council obtained from the vets who looked after their dog. However, we found that the council did not interview the licensee when investigating the complaint. Although the council told us that they did not have a duty to interview the licensee and would only do so if the conditions of the license appeared to have been breached, there seemed to be differing views about this in the council, and we made a recommendation to address this. We did not see sufficient evidence that the council explained their responsibilities to Mr and Mrs C; specifically that the council had to ensure the kennels were complying with the conditions of their license, and that information gathered had been compared against the licence conditions. We also found that the council's further consideration of Mr and Mrs C’s complaint did not involve any new investigation of the matters they had raised. We took the view that Mr and Mrs C

Mr C complained that the council had taken a decision to recover outstanding council tax by issuing a summary warrant. As a result he also received a statutory addition of ten percent of the outstanding sum. Mr C considered the council's actions were premature and did not take into account his changing circumstances. The council explained that as Mr C failed to make his monthly payments on time he lost his right to pay by instalments. As he then failed to pay the full outstanding balance, he was served with a summary warrant and incurred a ten percent statutory additional charge. They pointed out that any changes to benefits arrangements did not remove the responsibility to the individual to pay outstanding tax. We reviewed the council's procedures and the relevant legislation. From this review we were satisfied that the council followed the correct process when dealing with this matter. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103639 as a PDF (16.73 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with his complaint about a local trader properly. Mr C said he had problems with a car he purchased from a trader and asked trading standards to help. Mr C said he called trading standards many times and had to go the complaints department at the council and write to the chief executive before the trading standards service would do anything for him. In their response to our enquiry on the complaint, the council provided copies of their complaints procedure, the criminal legislation relevant to this case, their enforcement policy and the code of practice on which the policy is based, as well as trading standards' electronic computer record on the complaint about the trader and copies of correspondence between Mr C and the council and the council's internal communications. The evidence showed that the action taken by trading standards was in accordance with the criminal legislation they enforce, their enforcement policy and the code of practice. The evidence showed that trading standards endeavoured to mediate in Mr C's civil dispute and provide information on the feedback they received from the trader. The council responded to Mr C's complaints about the trading standards service in accordance with the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. The council's trading standards service are duty bound to consider any breaches of the criminal legislation they enforce and it is for them to determine what action if any is appropriate. There is no obligation on the council's trading standards service to provide any assistance to consumers who have contractual disputes with traders. However, the council have chosen to provide a mediation service for consumers in their area. This does not mean that they are required to represent consumers but simply to mediate in the dispute. The evidence showed that the council dealt with Mr C's complaint properly and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report

Mr C complained about the actions of the social work department in dealing with him, his son with his former partner and the way the council dealt with his complaints to them about this. Mr C complained that documents sent to him about his son and step-sons contained inaccuracies. We upheld this complaint but found that the council had already addressed these issues, and had taken remedial action to prevent a recurrence. They had also apologised to Mr C in various pieces of correspondence. We did not uphold Mr C's other two complaints. One was about the arrangements for contact appointments for Mr C to see his son. In particular, one appointment had been cancelled without Mr C's knowledge or agreement and was not re-scheduled. Our investigation considered whether or not responsibility for these arrangements in fact lay with the council. We found that the arrangements were the responsibility of Mr C and his former partner, so the fact that the appointment was not re-scheduled was not the fault of the council. Mr C's final complaint was that he was not satisfied with the outcome of a Complaints Review Committee (CRC). We explained to Mr C that when investigating complaints about social work our role is limited to looking at whether or not the council followed their own procedures for dealing with complaints, including the administration of the CRC process. Our investigation established that the CRC was administered in line with the council's process and that there were no unreasonable delays within the process. The council also implemented the CRC's recommendations and Mr C was informed of this in a timely manner. Related reading View Decision Report 201003016 as a PDF (14.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that after he applied for a grant in 2008 the council failed to return the original title deeds for his house and supporting documentation. He said he only became aware of this in 2011 following a further grant application. He said that a council officer uplifted the original documentation and failed to return it, or send it to Registers of Scotland (ROS) where the title to his home was to be amended following the grant application. He also considered that he should have received acknowledgement that the £30 fee for making these amendments had been paid. The council explained that they made a full search of their records and returned the only documentation they held - a copy of the title deeds. They pointed out that their procedures at the time only required that they obtain a copy of the deeds to support a grant application. They provided us with copies of correspondence sent to Mr C at the time of the grant application, which explained that the council would contact ROS to request amendment to the title to show the grant restrictions. They also explained that the £30 fee would be deducted from the grant at source. We found no evidence to support Mr C's view that he supplied his original title deeds or that the council should have forwarded these to ROS. ROS have confirmed that the title was amended. As the council explained the process to Mr C at the time, and as there is no evidence to show that they failed to follow the correct process, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201101725 as a PDF () Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised concerns about the planning process followed by the council and the content of the planning officer's report into a planning application for a wind turbine. In particular, he was concerned that the council failed to carry out further neighbour notification and statutory consultation following the developer's relocation of the turbine to a nearby site. In addition, Mr C was of the view that the planning officer's report was partial and skewed in favour of the applicant. Having reviewed the planning file and complaints correspondence, it was clear that the decisions reached by the planning officer were those he was entitled to reach in the exercise of his professional judgement and appeared to be consistent with national and local planning policy. For this reason we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201100182 as a PDF (13.72 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that a council officer conducted office bearer elections for a community council outwith the prescribed times detailed in the council's 'Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils' and the community council's constitution. The council said that the terms of the scheme were not clear, and that their area manager had taken appropriate advice before reaching a decision. Mrs C argued that they were unclear and that the elections were invalid. Our investigation found that a reasonable case could made for either of these points of view, and that, therefore the council’s actions were not unreasonable. However, we also noted that the council had explained that they intended to carry out a review of the scheme and the constitution of the community council to seek to improve clarity and we welcomed this decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201005334 as a PDF (13.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to respond to his written complaint about a road layout. Our investigation found that the council had contacted Mr C to discuss his concerns. The officer who spoke to him said the matter would be dealt with the following week. Mr C said he was happy with this and the council closed their complaint file. When we looked at the correspondence, however, it became clear that as a result of the discussion the officer thought that Mr C was complaining about problems in a different place. The officer, therefore, arranged for work to be carried out in an area that was not mentioned in Mr C's original letter. As Mr C had said during the discussion that he was happy the work was going to be done, the complaint was closed without replying to the original point. We, therefore, found that the council had not answered Mr C's complaint. We also noted that it would have, in any case, been appropriate to respond in writing to complete matters. Had this been done it is possible that the misunderstanding could have been resolved then. As a result of this we upheld the complaint and recommended that the council respond to the points raised in his letter. The council have now done so. Related reading View Decision Report 201100278 as a PDF (18.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council’s social work department failed to comply with their legal responsibility to carry out an assessment of his care needs and failed to provide him with care and support. He also complained that the council did not pay his claim for non personal care arrears. Our investigation found that he had not made a reasonable request for an assessment. When it became clear that an assessment was required this was promptly carried out and a care and support plan produced. This detailed the services required, and those which will be provided by the council. As we did not consider that the council were responsible for the delay and as Mr C was not contributing towards the cost of the care services, we did not find that the council were liable for any backdated monies. Related reading View Decision Report 201004313 as a PDF (13.68 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018