SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained that after she experienced sewage flooding into her garden, the council's environmental health and building control departments failed to take sufficient action. She alleged that as a consequence, the health of her family had been compromised. She was also unhappy that the council had allowed the owner of the property causing the problem to live in his house without having had a completion certificate provided. Mrs C said that after she complained formally about these matters, the council failed to respond properly to her concerns and did not deal with her formal complaint in terms of their own complaints process. We investigated the complaint and took all the information provided by the council and Mrs C into account. This included the complaints files, internal emails, water testing results and inspection notes, together with drainage plans and the relevant environmental health and building legislation. Our investigation found that, while the council took appropriate action after a meeting, for about five months beforehand there had been no plan or impetus to resolve the matter, and so we upheld this part of the complaint. After the meeting, environmental health and building standards departments worked with the neighbour to find a resolution to the problem. There were some delays, but these were caused by the neighbour. The council took the view that in both this matter and that of the completion certificate, they would rather work with the neighbour's cooperation than take enforcement action against him. We found that this was a decision they were entitled to take. In terms of complaints handling, after Mrs C complained, the council found her correspondence challenging to deal with because of the amount that she sent them. Nevertheless, after tracking all the documentation as part of this investigation, we found that, overall, they dealt with Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Miss C lives next to a sports facility, which was opened in 2006. She complained that the council failed to take responsibility for the escalating problems arising from the use of the football pitch, or to provide appropriate measures to resolve the nuisance. Miss C also complained that the council delayed in dealing with her complaint. We explained to Miss C that we could not look at the decision to grant planning permission or any of the things that happened before she complained to the council in 2011, essentially because these were too old for us to look at. Our investigation did look at the recent action the council had taken to address concerns of nuisance arising from the use of the facility, and noted that there was evidence that they had engaged with Miss C, and others acting on her behalf. Although she said she thought more could be done to resolve the nuisance, Miss C did not identify what this was. We did not uphold this complaint. We were satisfied that the council took action to try to address Miss C's concerns, and in responding to our enquiry, they had agreed to meet Miss C to discuss any outstanding issues and whether a solution could be found. We did, however, find that the council delayed in dealing with Miss C's complaint.

Mr C, who is Mr A's representative, complained that there were inaccuracies in the report of a social work complaints review committee meeting, that was presented to the housing and social work services committee. He wanted to correct minor factual accuracies concerning Mr A's title and age. He also disagreed with some of the findings of the report and said he had not received a response to his letter highlighting the inaccuracies. We found that, in accordance with council procedures, Mr C's comments were appended to the report for consideration by the committee. The council provided a copy of the information presented to the committee and it included Mr C's comments as appendix three to the document. The minutes of the social work services committee meeting also recorded that the report presented to the committee 'included comments from Mr A's representative’ and was approved. We were satisfied that Mr C's comments were heard and taken into consideration by the committee in deciding that the recommendations of the sub-committee be approved and told Mr C we would not be pursuing his complaint any further. Related reading View Decision Report 201202547 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C runs a business situated on a road that the council intended to close temporarily for a week to allow for resurfacing. The normal practice was that the council prepared a letter for a representative of the contractor to hand-deliver to businesses at least a week before work started and, at the same time, to discuss specific access requirements. Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably undertake their responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 about access and egress (entry and exit) to the works area; did not follow their own health and safety procedures in relation to the road works; and did not investigate his complaints about these matters within a reasonable time scale. Our investigation confirmed that the council’s contractor had not notified and discussed specific access and egress requirements with Mr C (and a number of other businesses) until four calendar days before the work started. Mr C also had photographic evidence showing that health and safety procedures were on at least one occasion not followed when a vehicle reversed without a banksman (reversing assistant) in attendance. We, therefore, upheld the first two elements of Mr C’s complaint. We did not uphold the complaint about complaints handling, as although the complaint took slightly longer to deal with than indicated by the council’s published timelines, we found there had been mitigating circumstances.

Mr C complained about the way the council dealt with a planning application for a proposed development of social housing near his home. He felt the council had not consulted with the community appropriately, had failed to take into account objections properly, and had not given reasonable justification for the choice of site. We found that the council dealt with the application appropriately and in accordance with planning policy. The planning report about the site had considered all objections and provided reasoned responses. We noted there had been an initial error with the documentation provided during neighbour notification, but that this had been rectified. In any event the council had given reasonable opportunity for representations to be made and heard during consultation events and during a planning committee meeting. We also found that, although the council were not required to justify choosing this specific site over others, they had nonetheless provided their reasoning for this choice of site to the community. We also did not uphold the complaint that construction started before planning condition pre-requisites were met, as we found evidence to the contrary. We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the council handled his complaints, as we found the final response was unreasonably delayed and did not address any of the points on which Mr C had sought responses.

Mrs C raised her concern about the council's handling of a planning application for her housing development, which they approved in 2005. Her garden turned out to have a very steep slope and the rear fence was not sited where it should have been. There was, however, also a dispute, for safety reasons, between the developer and the council over whether the fence should be moved. Mrs C was unhappy that the council had not required the developer to submit plans showing contours or cross sections of the site at the outset. She said that, as a result, she had been left with a rear garden which was unmanageable and unusable. She was also unhappy that the council did not take enforcement action about the breach of planning control relating to the positioning of the fence. We upheld both of Mrs C's complaints. We criticised the council for their handling of the application. Our planning adviser said that because of the sloping nature of the site, they would have expected the planning officer to obtain details of the proposed ground levels compared to original levels. The council's failure to do so meant that the usable garden area was smaller than shown on the plans. However, during our investigation, we found that the council had as a result of this complaint improved their working practices. They now obtain information about the 'before' and 'after' ground levels as standard practice before granting planning permission, so we made no recommendation. We also took the view that the council should have taken earlier action to follow up on the positioning of the fence.

In response to a demand notice, Mr C paid a council tax bill for which he was not liable. The property concerned was a church manse (a house provided for a church minister). Following the departure of the occupier, Mr C had asked the council to forward any outstanding bills to the home of one of the church officers. However, the council named Mr C on the demand notice that threatened debt recovery action in various forms. In an attempt to prevent the church officer being subjected to such action, Mr C decided to pay the money due, in the belief that, when it was explained to the council, they would refund the payment. The council refused to do so, even though they admitted that Mr C was not liable and said that they also believed that Mr C did not intend to take responsibility for the liable person's debt. Mr C complained that the council refused to return the money; wrongly named a church officer on the demand notice; and had not dealt properly with his complaint. We upheld all of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council were wrong to retain money that had been paid as a result of their error and to name a church officer on the demand notice. We also found that the council did not consider the complaint adequately and in line with their own policies. We made recommendations to address these failings.

Mr C lives in a building, part of which had previously been converted to shop premises. Agents for the owners of the shop had discussions with council officers and followed these up with an application for planning consent to extend the premises to the front and side. Changes in practice related to the Planning etc Scotland Act 2006 meant that it was the council's responsibility to have notified six parties, including Mr C, about the planning application. Mr C did not receive notification and the application was approved by officers under delegated powers. When work started, Mr C contacted his solicitors to make a complaint. The solicitors made three complaints on behalf of Mr C. They complained that the council had: failed in their duty to carry out neighbour notification in respect of the application, failed to properly evaluate parking at the site as part of their consideration of the application, and refused to take appropriate action on complaints about noise nuisance. The solicitors said that Mr C had been disadvantaged as a result of not being notified and in the alleged lack of consideration given to material planning issues, most notably parking. They obtained affidavits (statements) from four other residents, all of whom said that they too had not received neighbour notification. Following the advice of our planning adviser, we decided not to uphold these complaints. On the first complaint, although five parties claimed they had not been notified, the council's records indicated that the notifications were sent. We took the view that the council's duty did not extend to confirming or tracking receipt of these. On the second complaint, the issue of parking had clearly been considered, both before the application was made and as part of the assessment of the application. On the third complaint the alleged noise nuisance had been appropriately investigated by environmental officers. Related reading View Decision Report 201102546 as a PDF (17.48 KB) Updated: M

The council carried out a survey of a sample of tower block residents about the service provided on estates. It asked for views on services, security and amenity issues. About a couple of years later, they told residents that they had decided to make changes to improve service and security. This included removing existing residential caretakers and installing a CCTV (camera) monitoring system linked to a control room. Mrs C and Mrs B complained on behalf of a number of tower block residents, who had signed a petition against the change. They complained that the council failed to consult with all residents before making changes to residential caretaking services and that residents were denied an opportunity to take part in the survey on which the decision was made. Mrs C and Mrs B said that the council had not addressed their complaint fully and properly and that there was a delay in responding. They wanted the council to undertake a further survey with all residents. We upheld two of the complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond fully to Mrs C and Mrs B's request for details of the criteria used for the survey and the breakdown of the results. There was also a delay in responding to the complaint. We did not, however, uphold complaints that the survey was not properly carried out; that the majority agreement of residents should have been obtained; or that the council failed to address the residents' request for information about the survey and the cost involved, and for a review of the decision. When we told the chief executive of the council of the decision, we also pointed out that the council had failed to provide us with all the information we asked for; and we sought assurances that there would not be a recurrence of this in future.

Mr C complained that the council had wrongly withheld information from him and had refused to apologise to him, even though their customer services strategy was to do so when they were wrong and do their best to put things right. Mr C also complained that his complaint about the handling of his request for information was not dealt with properly under the council's complaints procedure. Mr C said that he wanted the council to apologise to him face-to-face and in writing. We considered that there was an opportunity to try to resolve the complaint and asked the council if they would be prepared to apologise to Mr C. The council told us that while they acknowledged there had been a slight delay in publishing information, they did not feel there was cause for an apology. We could not become more involved because we do not have the power to comment on or to reconsider matters which have been the subject of investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. On complaint handling, the council acknowledged, with regret, that they had not responded to Mr C's formal complaint within the target time for complaints handling. We upheld this complaint. Recommendation We recommended that the council: • apologise in writing to Mr C for not meeting the council's customer care standards in investigating his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100064 as a PDF (18.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly deal with his planning application for an extension to his home. He said that the council lost documents and unnecessarily delayed their decision to grant planning consent. After consent was granted, Mr C raised his concerns with the council about the time the process had taken. We reviewed the statutory framework within which this decision was made. This included: • The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2008, and • The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2008 In addition we considered the supporting Scottish Government Planning Circulars, Circulars 4 and 7, North Lanarkshire Council's Scheme of Delegation and Policy HSG 12 'House Extensions' from North Lanarkshire Council's Southern Area Local Plan. Our investigation found that consent was granted eight working days outwith the statutory two month period during which a planning authority should usually determine an application. We found that although the council did not determine the application within two months this is not, in itself, maladministration. The law provides for such delays and gives the applicants an avenue of appeal. However, insofar as the council did delay the validation of the application by failing to ensure that the scanned plans were passed to the planning officer when first submitted, we upheld the complaint. The council accepted that they caused the initial delay in this process and have apologised to Mr C for this. For this reason, and because they had demonstrated that they have put in place procedures to try and ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future, we had no further recommendations to make. Related reading View Decision Report 201004601 as a PDF (19.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a member of a local community forum, raised concerns about how the council handled a consultation about the proposed development of land through their draft Local Plan. He and others felt that the community forum had been excluded and that communities bordering the proposed development site had not been meaningfully involved. They also said the council mishandled the process by not providing clear proposals, not recognising the true number of individual objectors and not complying with statutory requirements about public notices. We did not uphold any of these complaints. We recognised that local people felt very strongly about the proposals, which created a swathe of new housing that people felt would connect separate existing communities. Residents in local villages were concerned about the effects of this and the loss of village status. However, it was not for us to decide whether the council broke the law or to question the professional judgement of their planning officers. Our focus was on administrative processes, and whether the council followed them properly and acted reasonably. We obtained advice from our professional planning adviser about relevant legislation and good practice. He said that the council acted reasonably during the process, giving reasonable explanations for their actions when Mr C complained. They might have done more to ask the community forum for their views, and provide information to committee members about a survey carried out by the forum. However they had received comments from a number of sources and held public meetings, though not all of these were well attended. Our adviser also said that some of the documents on which Mr C based his concerns were not relevant to the consultation. In the circumstances, we made one recommendation about objection letters.