SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council had not handled his correspondence and complaints reasonably. He was unhappy that correspondence he had sent had not been answered, that he had not been able to speak with the complaints handler when he called and that there were inaccuracies in the final response to his complaint. Following careful consideration of the documentation, the council appeared to have only received one letter. There was no acknowledgement or response sent to Mr C. Mr C then contacted the council on a number of occasions to express his dissatisfaction at not receiving a response. The council did not identify these contacts as a complaint. It was only when Mr C approached us that the council logged a complaint - and used a phone note dated two months earlier as the complaint from Mr C, which led to inaccuracies when referring to timescales in the council's final response. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint that his complaint had not been handled reasonably by the council. We recommended that they apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation and remind housing staff of the definition of a complaint and the importance of identifying, logging and responding to complaints and keeping complainants updated as set out in the council's complaints procedure.

Mr C told us that, in error, the council had opened the grave in which his son was buried. When the family discovered the grave had been disturbed, they contacted the council and were initially told the grave had been dug to the depth of two feet and then filled in. We found that the council had not provided a clear and consistent account as the grave had, in fact, been fully prepared for a burial. The council explained that the mistake was down to administrative error, in that the wrong section row had been identified by a member of administrative staff. Gravediggers also failed to notice or question why the plaque at the grave did not match the details recorded on their work instruction. We found the council's handling of Mr C's complaint to be relatively poor in view of the clear failings which had caused considerable distress and upset. The complaint was not treated with the degree of priority that it should have been, and Mr C did not receive a proper response to his request for a meeting.

Ms C complained that the council had failed to deal properly with her claim to them for damage to her car, which she believed was due to a pothole. She also complained that they failed to deal with her subsequent complaint in line with their complaints process. We found that the council had followed their claims process properly, apart from their failure to provide one piece of photographic evidence submitted with the claim to their claims handlers. This photograph was later provided and the council asked their claims handlers to reassess the claim. Having done so, they did not admit liability because the council had met their responsibilities in terms of roads inspections. However, as they had failed to pass the photograph on to their claims handlers, and as this resulted in an increase in the time taken to fully assess the claim, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended that the council review their procedures to ensure that all evidence is provided to claim handlers and, when photos cannot be accessed, they ask the claimant to provide copies in another format. We found that, with the exception of a delay in acknowledging the complaint, the council dealt with the complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. He was concerned that, having received notification of the approval of the planning consent, he discovered that the original plans for the extension had been amended. The plans now included what he considered to be two non-compliant windows (in terms of the separation between the windows) on the front of the extension. Mr C was aggrieved that he had received no notification about this amendment. He also disagreed with the council's decision to accept obscure glazing for these two windows to reduce an element of overlooking. Mr C also still thought that the approved proposal included what he considered to be another non-compliant window in terms of window separation. This window was on the side of the extension. Mr C complained that the extension would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings). During our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that the role of the council's guidelines was one of guidance, and that all proposals were different and required to be assessed based on their own individual merits and the local context. We were satisfied that the council had addressed Mr C's concern about the issues he had raised, in particular in relation to the amendment that was made to the proposal to include two obscure glazed windows on the front of the extension, and the separation distance of the window on the side of the extension. We did not find that the decision taken by the council to accept the two obscure glazed windows was unreasonable and we were satisfied that it was for the council, as planning authority, to decide what notice to give other parties of such a variation. We were also satisfied that the council had explained that the side window on the extension did not cause a window-to-window distance issue and that their decision to ac

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to require her neighbour to submit a planning application to install roof lights (velux windows). She said that they had allowed her neighbour to install the roof lights on the basis that planning and listed building consents for this work had been granted in 1996 and were 'kept alive' because the building had been painted and works to the internal stairwell were carried out within five years of the consent being granted. The council took the view that as the consented works had started, the permissions should not lapse. Ms C was of the view that these permissions should have lapsed after five years and new applications submitted for any further works. She was also concerned that without the requirement to submit a new application, she had lost the right to make representations to the council. We considered the background to the case and sought independent advice from our planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence to support the council's view that the building had been painted since 1996, and that this work did not form part of the original planning consent. We also found that the internal stairwell, where works appear to have taken place, also did not form part of the original planning permission. The only work which required planning permission, and which was granted in 1996, was the installation of the roof lights. However, as these roof lights were not installed until 2014, the original planning and listed building consents should have lapsed in 2001, five years after the original permission was granted. We noted that the council had based their decision solely on information provided by the neighbour and failed to take any steps to verify what works had been carried out under the original permissions. We also noted that even when it should have become apparent that the original permissions had lapsed, they did not take steps to consider any form of enforcement action to have the roof lights ap

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide his father, who was a resident in a sheltered housing complex, with a reduction in his rent as they indicated they would, in recognition of the additional disturbance caused to him by works being carried out at the sheltered housing complex. He was of the view that they failed to take appropriate steps to address the disturbance caused by these works and failed to deal appropriately, and within a reasonable time frame, with the request for rent reduction. We found that the council had offered Mr C's father a decant to another property for the period of the major renovation works but he had refused this offer. They paid a disturbance allowance to all residents in recognition of the works, and arranged for new residents facilities and alternative eating arrangements when the lounge was closed and the in-house meals service was terminated. Following Mr C's complaint to the council, they also agreed to make a further payment for the additional level of disruption. We found that they had taken into account the disturbance caused to Mr C's father and made appropriate offers to recognise this. However, we also noted the council's suggestion that a waiver or reduction of Mr C's father's rent for this period was being seriously considered. We felt that the council's correspondence did not clearly highlight that this was a possibility and not a likelihood. In addition, it took the council almost seven months to reach a decision on this point, by which time, Mr C's father had died. As a result of the lack of clarity in their communication, and the significant delay in reaching their decision on the rent reduction, we upheld this aspect of the complaint and recommended that the council write to Mr C to apologise for the failings identified.

Ms C and her family lived in a property that needed some work done that could not be carried out with tenants in the property. She was offered a temporary property to live in whilst the work was being carried out, but Ms C said she had asked if she could be considered for a permanent house move. She said that the council had initially agreed to this. When Ms C's request for a permanent housing transfer was turned down, she complained to us. The council's tenancy policy states that a tenant may be relocated temporarily to allow the council to carry out work, but tenants will then return to their permanent tenancy following completion of work. The policy also sets out the (separate) system whereby points are allocated to determine eligibility for council housing. We found that the council had sought other options such as bed and breakfast accommodation for the duration of the works, which was beyond what they were required to do. We also found that Ms C and her partner were not eligible for a permanent housing transfer. Although we recognised that this was a stressful experience involving upheaval for Ms C and her family, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406154 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A). When Mr A moved out of his property, the council had sent him a bill for rechargeable repairs. Mrs C appealed the bill. The council told her that the charges were accurate and that she had completed their complaints procedure. When Mrs C brought her complaint to us, we asked the council for a copy of their final complaint response. The council told us that the complaint had not been logged or responded to in line with the complaints procedure. In the circumstances, we referred Mrs C back to the council for them to provide a full and final position, and closed the complaint. Mrs C then returned to our office. We found that the council had still not responded to her complaint and so we upheld her complaint that it had not been reasonably handled. We made recommendations to address this. However, regarding the charge for repairs, we found that Mr A had told the council he wanted the repairs completed and agreed to them being recharged to him. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C complained to us about the council's social work service's decision to create a child protection plan in relation to his partner's child's welfare. Mr C was dissatisfied with how the case conference was conducted. We initially engaged with the council to establish the reason why Mr C had not been offered a right to request a social work complaints review committee, but the council said that their handling of the complaint was in line with their complaints procedure. Mr C complained that he had been told he could not submit a report to the case conference, but we found nothing to suggest that Mr C had been given such advice, or that he had a right to submit a report. Although we did not uphold this complaint, we were concerned that the council had agreed to Mr C's request to amend the minute to record that he had not submitted a report, but the minute of the case conference included a reference to him doing so. We recommended to the council that they should consider whether the minute needed to be amended to correct this reference, and to apologise to Mr C if it was found there had been a failure to make the correction earlier. We found Mr C's complaint that he had not been allowed to speak freely at the case conference was not backed by the evidence in the minute of the number of times he had spoken and did not uphold this complaint. Further, we found no evidence to justify Mr C's complaint about the council's failure to provide him with a satisfactory response when he said that there had been incorrect compilation and reporting of information about him in the minute of the case conference, and did not uphold it. With regard to the council not dealing with his complaint under the final stages of the social work complaints procedure (a complaints review committee), we considered the council's interpretation of Mr C's complaint was too narrow and did not fully reflect that someone complaining about the withholding or withdrawal of a service might, in the cou

Mr C is the landlord of several properties which he lets. He said that over the years he has received council tax bills for the full charge even although the properties were empty and he was due a ten percent exemption. He complained that the council were implementing a policy whereby they automatically billed for a full charge and that they failed to make any appropriate enquiries about the status of the property concerned. Further enquiries were made of the council and the complaint was investigated. This showed that current legislation allowed that in circumstances like those of Mr C, the council should make a ten percent reduction but that in his case, because of human error, this had not happened. The situation was one of carelessness, rather than of a lack of understanding of the legislation. There was no policy to automatically bill the full charge but because of the error, we upheld Mr C's complaint. As a result of Mr C's complaint, the council have emphasised to staff what they should be doing in relation to unoccupied properties between lets and they have undertaken a three month check to ensure that this policy is followed. They are also in discussion with their software supplier in attempt to remove human error.

Mrs C complained to the council about noise and air pollution from a nearby industrial site. The council looked into the matter but did not consider the problems to constitute a statutory nuisance. However, Mrs C did not feel that the council had taken sufficient steps to investigate her concerns and she was unhappy that they failed to take action against the site owners. It was not our role to assess whether a nuisance existed as that was a matter for the council. The focus of our investigation was to establish whether the council acted in line with the appropriate procedures when investigating Mrs C’s complaints. The available evidence demonstrated that the council made a significant number of visits to the area, and carried out tests, to determine whether or not a statutory nuisance existed. They also contacted relevant specialists for advice on measuring the air pollution concerns. They responded to each of the complaints of nuisance raised by Mrs C within an appropriate timeframe. While they could have done more to keep Mrs C up to date on the progress of their investigations, they had already acknowledged this and apologised to Mrs C. In the absence of any evidence of administrative failure in the way the council investigated the complaints of nuisance, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403431 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to her complaint about the transition arrangements for transferring her child from nursery to primary school and that her child's educational needs were not being appropriately met at the school. Miss C's child has additional educational needs and, at the time she complained to us, was being assessed for autistic spectrum disorder. We were satisfied that the council took Miss C's complaint seriously. They appointed a council education officer to investigate, who met with Miss C to discuss the complaint and the proposed investigation. The findings and proposed recommendations of that investigation were discussed with Miss C at a second meeting during which the council accepted that there were failings in the service Miss C had received. They said that lessons had been learned and they apologised. However, we were of the view that the council's final decision letter, issued after the second meeting, was premature. This was because Miss C's comments on the minutes of the meeting had not at that time been received and because the officer had told Miss C that she was postponing sending the final decision letter as her involvement was ongoing and a further meeting had been scheduled for a later date. Also, as the decision letter was the council's final response on Miss C's complaint, we considered that the council should have informed Miss C of her right to independent mediation and adjudication under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation of her complaint. There was no evidence the council did so at that time and this alternative avenue did not appear to have been raised until two months later when Miss C made a request for independent mediation after she had removed her child from the school. We were critical of the council for their failure to do so.

Ms C said that she had experienced unacceptable noise levels from a neighbouring flat. She called the council to report the disturbance and when officers visited they decided, as the tenants had just moved in, that the noise level was not unacceptably high. Ms C called the council's noise monitoring team the next day to complain that a reading had not been taken but she was unhappy about the way the officer spoke to her. She called the following night when there again was noise but the council did not come out to her property. The council's investigation considered her complaints about the member of staff and the anti-social noise and did not uphold her complaints. We considered the council's log of contact with Ms C, their procedures for dealing with noise and complaints handling and found that the officers had no evidence of anti-social noise to act upon and that the council had responded reasonably to her concerns in line with their procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201404902 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C moved out of a council property. Before moving out he was asked to replace a kitchen and bedroom door and to fill in part of another door where a lock had been fitted. Mr C told us that he carried out these repairs and that a council representative passed them as acceptable. Two months after moving out, Mr C received a bill for the doors as the council said that they had had to replace them, and he complained to us about this. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In response to our investigation the council supplied photographs of the doors that they had replaced, showing clear damage to them. They also supplied their policies which showed that the tenant had to make necessary repairs before vacating the property and allowed the council to recharge the tenant for the costs of replacing any fittings or making repairs. We found no evidence proving that a council representative passed the repairs as acceptable. Related reading View Decision Report 201403673 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about a bill the council issued them for rechargable repairs. A year previously the council had helped check and fit three light fittings for Mr and Mrs C. When they terminated the tenancy they had asked at the council offices if they should leave the light fittings in place. Mr and Mrs C said that the council staff phoned another member of staff who advised them to leave the lights and there would be no charge. When Mr and Mrs C complained the council said that they had spoken to staff, who said that they would not have given that advice. During our investigation we found that the council had not spoken to the relevant staff during their investigation. We asked them to speak to those staff members during the course of our investigation, but they did not. As the council could not demonstrate that they had thoroughly investigated the main point of Mr and Mrs C's complaint, we upheld their complaint.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably charged him for repairs after he vacated their property. When he left the property the council had sent him a bill for repairs that they said needed carried out. Mr C said he had caused some of the damage, but not other items that were listed. The council then cancelled some of the charges but said that the remaining ones stood. Our investigation found that the council had photographic evidence of the repairs that they ultimately asked Mr C to pay for. We also found that they had clear guidance in their policy about charging for damage, and that this was in the tenancy agreement that Mr C had signed. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201401961 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C wanted to buy an area of land behind his property to create a new driveway. The council, however, refused to sell it to him because they believed that any access would impact the status of the green space area concerned. Mr C then complained that land in the same green space had been sold to another residential neighbour and to a utilities company. We made enquiries with the council and found that their decision to refuse to sell the land was one that they were entitled to make. We also found that they had considered and responded to each of Mr C's concerns. His disagreement with the council's decision was not in itself evidence of maladministration, and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402727 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that when she agreed to move a smaller new build house, the council told her they would cover the costs of her move under the transfer incentive scheme (TIS). She was then, however, charged much more than she had been led to expect for repairs to her former council property after she moved out. This used up a considerable amount of the money available under the TIS, and so some of the costs with which the council had said they would assist could not be met. She also complained about problems with items in her new home, and about the council's handling of her representations. During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had explained to Miss C that they would assist with the costs of the move up to the maximum allowed under the TIS. They had also explained before the move that they would not be able to meet all of the costs involved. They had, however, offered to exceed the budget allowed under the TIS to meet the costs of new laminate flooring, but Miss C did not accept this offer. The council confirmed that there was no money available within the new financial year to meet the costs of floor coverings. They also provided details of the repairs required to Miss C's former property. During our investigation the council took action to replumb Miss C's washing machine and to install a rotary dryer at her new property. They confirmed that a number of other issues had been identified relating to the new build houses and that the developer would address these. We were, therefore, satisfied that the council had responded to Miss C and addressed her concerns, in line with their complaints process. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints, although we made recommendations as we were concerned that administrative omissions meant that not all the information about what happened was available, including that there was no written record of their extensive communication with Miss C by phone and during meetings.

Mr C's neighbour was granted planning consent by the council for a single storey rear extension and the addition of two dormer windows to their property. Other renovations to the existing property were also carried out at this time including replacing windows in the lounge. Mr C complained that in granting planning permission, the council did not follow their own policies and guidelines in relation to the amenity of his property. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the council had considered all the relevant policies and guidelines when assessing the application. However, we also found that, in responding to Mr C's complaint, they had referred to different considerations for the distances between windows in neighbouring properties and habitable/non-habitable rooms in any new development. These considerations were not mentioned in any of their existing policies or guidance. We also found that the council had incorrectly advised Mr C on two issues when responding to his complaint. He was wrongly told that the kitchen in his neighbour’s extension was a non-habitable room, and that the replacement windows in the existing lounge did not require planning consent. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made recommendations to the council about the incorrect advice he was given.

Mrs C complained about how the council handled work that would possibly reroute sewerage infrastructure through her garden. The work was to be done as part of the council’s flood defence programme, which was originally the subject of public consultation. The original plans had a minimal effect on Mrs C, but in 2010 the main contractor showed her a copy of a revised plan, which indicated that a new sewer was to be laid under her and her neighbour's gardens. This was the first Mrs C or her neighbour knew of the change. She was concerned that the new sewer would have significant consequences for her property and complained to the council. The council maintained that the flood prevention scheme was empowered by the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, which they said gave them the power to amend or deviate from (within a certain tolerance) the original plans without further consultation or provision of information to those affected. Considerable correspondence and meetings between the council, Mrs C, her neighbour, the design engineers, and the constructors ensued, ending in a meeting in March 2011. Mrs C and her neighbour considered that negotiations were ongoing at this stage as there were several action points from the meeting about further consultation or information to be provided to them. The next communication Mrs C received from the council was a formal 'Notice to Proceed' with the revised plans three weeks later. At this point Mrs C felt that she had no option but to seek legal advice. After correspondence between her solicitor, the council and Scottish Water (who did not agree with the council's view) a compromise was reached that the new sewer would not be routed through the gardens. Mrs C then asked the council to reimburse her legal fees, but they refused. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, focused only on consultation with and provision of information to those affected by the scheme, rather t

Mrs C, a private homeowner, complained to the council about a fence that they put up at her neighbour’s property. She complained that they had not consulted her about this, and her door now faced a six-foot fence. She had suggested other options that would not have impacted upon her, but said the council refused to consider these and had not responded adequately to her complaints. The council apologised for not involving her in discussions before they put the fence up and explained why they thought her suggestions were not practicable. Our investigation upheld Mrs C's complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised for not consulting her about the fence, we did not make a recommendation about this.

The council put up a fence dividing the area that Mr C and his neighbours used as a driveway, causing them difficulty in accessing the area with vehicles. Mr C complained to the council about this and then, when he was dissatisfied with their responses, he complained to us. We found inconsistencies in the council's responses, and that they did not respond at all to one of his letters, and so we upheld his complaint.

Mr C accepted the tenancy of a sheltered home, which he said required some upgrading as the bath was not suitable for him and he wanted to have a shower fitted. He said that although he contacted the occupational therapy service in February 2012, and was told that an appointment would be made to assess his needs, the service did not contact him. He also said that when he called to enquire about the appointment he was told it had been overlooked and that it would not be possible to make an appointment for him until near the end of May 2012. As he had to vacate his current property by 1 June 2012, he decided to arrange for the bathroom to be upgraded himself, including the removal of the bath and the installation of a shower. When, on completion, he asked for financial assistance towards the costs involved, this was refused as no assessment had been carried out and a retrospective recommendation could not be made. Our investigation found no evidence that Mr C's assessment had been overlooked. We found that an occupational therapist had phoned him in April 2012 to say that he was on the waiting list for an assessment but this could not be completed until he was in the property. He was advised of the procedures and potential waiting times for an assessment, and the therapist also explained that his medical conditions would be taken into consideration but it would be his functional ability that would determine what would be provided, and in the meantime he could maintain hygiene by washing. As we were satisfied that the council had made him fully aware of the process that needed to be undertaken before a shower could be considered for him, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304427 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C told us that when she decided to move house, she gave notice to the council and moved to a private tenancy. No one checked the house before she left. A few months later, the council invoiced her for a large sum of money. The council said that this represented the cost of various repair and reinstatement works for which she was responsible under the terms of her tenancy agreement. While Ms C agreed that she might be liable for some of the cost, she said that the remainder was the responsibility of the previous tenant. Our investigation found that Ms C's tenancy agreement was created when she took over the tenancy from a relative, with whom she had lived. This type of tenancy did not require an exit check when Ms C's relative moved out, and so in signing her own tenancy agreement, Ms C had assumed responsibility for the condition of the property. The council told us that after Ms C left the property, they inspected it and found that it was not in lettable condition. Repairs, reinstatement and cleaning works were required. The council had then charged Ms C for these, under the terms of her tenancy agreement. Although Ms C felt that she had been overcharged, we found no evidence of this. Related reading View Decision Report 201302144 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not acted appropriately over a noise nuisance that he said affected his home. He was also unhappy with their planning process. He told us that the council had delayed in taking action over noise nuisance and had been unduly accommodating to the company operating the site involved. He also said that his complaints had not been investigated properly and that council departments had failed to liaise about the problem. He told us that this resulted in the planning department failing to carry out a noise impact assessment, even though a freedom of information request had identified previous complaints about noise from the site. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as the evidence showed that the council had rigorously investigated his concerns, including carrying out tests, and that no statutory noise nuisance was established at his property. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who confirmed that the council had acted appropriately when they accepted and approved a retrospective planning application from the company operating the site. Related reading View Decision Report 201201431 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018