SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C owns an end of terrace house that is joined to a council owned property. When the council carried out improvement works on the roof of their property they required access to it through Ms C's garden. Ms C complained that she had not been told in advance by the council that the works would be carried out. She also complained that the council's contractors had damaged her garden and her roof while carrying out the works, and that she had to pay for the damage. The council said that Ms C was sent a letter in advance of the works. They offered to remedy the damage made to the garden, however said they were not liable for the damage to the roof. During our investigation we found that the council did not have any evidence that Ms C was informed of the works in advance and so upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to address it in future. We noted that the council had offered to remedy the damage in the garden, however the contractor had then not done this. For this reason, we upheld the complaint and recommended that the works take place as soon as possible. We concluded that the council had caused some of the damage to Ms C's roof and had not taken steps to remedy it. We upheld this complaint and recommended they reimburse Ms C for the cost of the repairs.

Ms C complained about the way the council handled changes to her council tax when she started work and stopped getting employment support allowance. Ms C contacted the council to tell them about the change in her circumstances. She knew that she was no longer entitled to a council tax reduction and wanted the necessary adjustments to be made to her council tax payments, which she made by direct debit. We found that the council did not act efficiently on the information provided and were responsible for confusion in the administration of Ms C's council tax. The team responsible for council tax reduction had not acted on an electronic notification from the Department of Work and Pensions and when Ms C contacted the council's customer contact centre she was given mixed messages about the process by which changes would be made to her account. Each time Ms C phoned the council she should have been transferred to the benefits service or invited to join the service phone queue in line with the council's agreed call-handling process. There was no evidence that this process was followed. Consequently it took more than 12 months for the council tax reduction to be removed so that the team responsible for council tax could adjust Ms C's account, by which time she had accrued significant arrears. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably took a payment from her bank account without prior warning. We did not uphold this complaint because there was no evidence that the council told Ms C when she made an additional payment by phone that the usual amount would not also be taken by direct debit.

Mr C complained that the council decided that some of his complaints were not eligible to be dealt with by the complaints review committee (CRC), which is the final stage of the council's social work complaints process. The council, by law, have a special process for dealing with complaints about social work services. The council said, and we agreed, that the particular complaints Mr C wanted the committee to look at were primarily educational rather than social work matters. The council had, at each stage of their complaints process, told Mr C that he should complain to the part of the council responsible for education, but we found that he had chosen to disregard this advice. Mr C also complained about the role of a council legal adviser during the committee meeting. He said that the officer had gone beyond her remit by asking him a question which he felt was an attempt to discredit his evidence. We found that the legal adviser had not acted unreasonably in asking the question, and the committee chairperson told us the question was relevant and reasonable. However, we thought it would have been helpful for the council to explain the role of each participant in advance of the committee and we made a recommendation about this.

Ms C, a council tenant, complained to us about the council's handling of repairs to her bathroom. She said there were delays in carrying out the repairs and that she had experienced poor communication with the council and contractors. She also said the contractors caused damage to her house while carrying out the repairs. We asked Ms C for more information to help us investigate this. However, she then told us that she had paid private contractors to repair the damage and wanted to withdraw her complaints. In accordance with Ms C's wishes, we stopped investigating and closed our file. Related reading View Decision Report 201402187 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a development in his area. He was concerned about the council planning and transportation officers' relationship with the developer and their agent, and believed that officers had acted inappropriately by advising the developer/agent how to circumvent the local plan for the area. Mr C said the planning department had misinterpreted Scottish Government guidance on whether a transport assessment was required for the development and that the planning and transportation departments colluded with a developer's agent to avoid a full traffic assessment. We obtained independent advice on the case from a planning adviser. Our adviser said that Scottish Government guidance and planning policy made it clear that pre-application discussions between a developer and a council were actively encouraged, and were viewed as adding value at the start of the development management process. The fact that pre-application discussions took place between the developer's agent and the council in this case was, therefore, entirely reasonable. We found no evidence of the planning department using inappropriate language in communications with the developer or that they became too friendly with the developer or their agent. Not did we find any evidence that the department exceeded their remit in the advice they provided on the local plan. To ensure transparency in the planning process, however, we considered that meetings with developers, including welcome meetings, should be minuted. We found that, on balance, the transport department did not collude with the developer's representative to avoid a traffic impact assessment. In terms of the requirement for a transport assessment, we concluded that the interpretation of planning guidance was a matter of professional judgment for the council as planning authority. However, before exercising that judgement, the planning committee should have had full information to en

Mrs C complained to us about her dissatisfaction with the council's investigation into her complaints about bullying of her children at their former school. She said that the school had failed to make her aware of their anti-bullying policy; had not contacted her when one of her children was hit during a playground incident; failed to properly manage bullying against another of her children; and that the head teacher had not tried to speak with Mrs C's husband when he notified the school that the children would not be returning. Mrs C told us that the head teacher's own investigation had contained glaring inaccuracies, but the council had not upheld her complaints. Our investigation found that Mrs C had been made aware that the school had an anti-bullying policy, as it was summarised in the handbook that she would have received when her children were enrolled. We did not uphold that complaint, although we made a recommendation. We also did not uphold the complaint about the council's investigation of Mrs C's complaint about the head teacher. They had found that the head teacher dealt appropriately with the matter, and we agreed that this was something for the council to decide. We did, however, uphold her complaints about the investigation into lack of communication and failure to manage bullying. On communication, we found that the investigation was flawed, as the council's files showed that they initially found fault with the school's handling of the playground incident, but then changed their decision and did not uphold the complaint. We found no evidence of new or further information having been provided before the decision was changed, and we took the view that the investigation relied too heavily on interviews, and did not seek to verify the facts with evidence. On bullying, we found that the council's investigation placed too much reliance on the head teacher's assurances that the school had properly managed the bullying. Again, the investigation had

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 C complained that a council advisory service did not have permission to work with his children. Mr C thought that the service had a duty to validate information provided by potential service users before offering a support service. Mr C told us that the council failed to reply to two letters he wrote to them. We found no evidence that the service had a duty to work in the way that Mr C would have preferred. Mr C did not dispute that his former partner had given consent and we found that this consent was sufficient to allow the council to provide a service to the children. The council acknowledged that they had not answered two letters sent directly to the service as they should have done. They told us that steps had been taken to ensure that this would not happen again and had apologised to Mr C. When it was originally published in February 2015, this case was wrongly categorised as 'not upheld'.  The correct category is 'some upheld'. Related reading View Decision Report 201404039 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to consider a councillor's request that his neighbour's planning application be referred to the council's planning committee. The councillor had emailed the council to ask that they let him know when a decision was due to be made on the application so that he could ask for it to be referred to the planning committee. The council had then notified councillors that the application would be decided by a planning officer under delegated authority, unless a request to refer the application to the planning committee was received within seven days. This addressed the councillor's request. Under the council's scheme of delegation, councillors have seven days in which to request referral to the planning committee, otherwise the council issue the decision on the application. The councillor also has to prepare a statement of reasons giving the reasons why the planning committee should determine the application. No request for referral to the planning committee was received within the seven day period and the council then made a decision on the application. We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council had acted in line with their scheme of delegation and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council had ignored a character appraisal for the local area (a description of the architectural and historic character and significance of the area) when they made a decision on the application. We found that the council had taken the character appraisal into account, but had found that this conflicted with national guidance, which carries more weight than local policies. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201401102 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that her child had been racially abused by another pupil at school. Ms C said the school had not contacted her on the day of the incident – unlike the other child's parents - and she found out about it from her child that evening. Ms C said she spoke with the head teacher the next day, who confirmed that the other child involved had been punished but would not confirm the specific punishment. Ms C also complained that her younger child had also suffered from bullying on a number of occasions. Although we fully recognised the significance of Ms C's concerns, the law does not allow us to consider complaints about conduct, curriculum or discipline within schools. This meant our role was to consider whether the council had followed the relevant policies, one of which said that both sets of parents should have been told about the incident. Although Ms C said the school did not contact her, the council said the school had tried to do so without success. While the school's paperwork appeared to indicate that they had tried to phone Ms C, the policy was clear that she should have been informed. Had they been unable to contact Ms C on the phone (or leave a message asking her to contact them), we considered the school could reasonably have sent a brief note home with Ms C's child asking Ms C to contact them or, alternatively, they could have sent a letter. Either of these steps would have demonstrably satisfied the policy and so, taking everything into account, we upheld this complaint. Ms C told us she had no supporting evidence for her second complaint. The council said the school confirmed there had been no reports (either from Ms C or her children) of any other incidents involving Ms C's children and the head teacher said Ms C had not reported bullying of her younger child, prior to her written complaint. There was no additional evidence of bullying or racial abuse for us to consider and, although we recognised the seriousness of the underlying a

Mr C complained that his local council did not handle a retrospective planning application fairly or in line with their own procedures. Neighbours had demolished a boundary wall and removed hedging between their and Mr C's property. When they applied for retrospective planning permission for this, Mr C and others lodged objections, and he then complained that these were not dealt with properly. He said that none of the objectors was given the opportunity to speak at the planning committee meeting, at which permission was granted subject to some conditions. Mr C also complained that the application was not dealt with properly, including that some information was not available on the council's website, meeting papers were not published in time to give objectors time to correspond with the council, and that a council planning representative gave inaccurate, incomplete and/or misleading information to the meeting. Our investigation included taking advice from one of our planning advisers and reviewing relevant legislation. We found that the council's planning process complied with the requirements of the legislation, and that the application had been dealt with in line with the process. On the specific issues raised by Mr C, we found that sufficient information about the application had been available to the public during the planning process. The relevant papers were published four working days before the meeting and this complied with the legislation, which requires any relevant papers to be published three full working days beforehand. The process does not allow objectors to address planning committee meetings, but we found that all the objections were included and responded to in the planning officer's report to the committee. Therefore, overall we considered that the council had processed the application in accordance with their process and the governing legislation. Related reading View Decision Report 201304445 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lived in a council property between July 2011 and March 2014 during which time he suffered a number of incidences of water penetration which appeared to come from the property above. He said that, as a consequence, his personal property had been damaged and that the house was not wind and watertight. He wanted to be rehoused. He complained that it was not until February 2014, when the problem was confirmed to be a systemic one probably related to the installation of cavity wall insulation a number of years previously, that he was offered permanent rehousing. Our investigation showed that while there were a number of incidences of water penetration, on each occasion and within a reasonable time, the council had attended to complete remedial works. It was also shown that the problems at Mr C's house were not necessarily related to weather conditions and that the council had investigated potential areas of concern in an attempt to eliminate the problem. There were also difficulties with access, in particular to the neighbouring property where it was thought the problem was originating. A subsequent architect's report indicated that the cause of the problem was likely to be systemic and, therefore, Mr C was rehoused. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201306184 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the way staff at a council-run community centre (the centre) communicated with her; that they had allowed photographs to be taken of her children against her wishes; failed to properly investigate an allegation that a staff member had referred in an offensive way to one of her children; and unreasonably failed to allow one of her children to go on a trip. Ms A complained that staff at the centre did not provide her with information about events in the accessible format she had requested. Our investigation found that the council had acknowledged that there had been some inconsistency in providing information to Ms A in the format she had requested. Action was taken by the council to ensure that all communication was appropriate to Ms A's needs and, as this action had been taken, the council did not uphold Ms A's complaint on this issue. We considered that the action taken by the council had been reasonable and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint about this. In relation to photographs taken of Ms A's children during a trip, Ms A had completed a form specifically refusing permission for her children to be photographed. The council acknowledged their error and apologised for this. As a result of Ms A's complaint, the council arranged staff training and also arranged for the deletion of the photographs in the presence of Ms A and her advocate. We considered that this was reasonable. In relation to Ms C's other complaints about allegations of an offensive term being used towards her child, and her child's exclusion from a trip, we found that neither of these complaints could be substantiated with evidence, so we did not uphold these complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201302576 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had written to the council to ask if a condition of planning approval had been purified (agreed to have been discharged) by their planning department. Under the council's planning enforcement charter he was entitled to a formal response within ten working days, but he did not receive this. When he wrote again this email was also ignored. Mr C then complained to the council and received their final response which signposted him to us. He then complained that the council did not respond in good time to his concerns about a possible breach of planning control at a neighbouring property. The council told us that they did not send a formal response as Mr C had met one of their officers at a council office (although Mr C said that this was while on other business). We decided, however, that they should have formally responded to his enquiry, in line with their charter. We upheld his complaint and were also critical of the council's complaints handling.

Miss C complained that the council removed an oven, hob and laminated flooring from her former tenancy in spite of a council officer having agreed that they would be offered for sale to the new tenant, and that Miss C would remove them if the tenant did not want them. The council said the oven and hob had been taken to the recycling centre, but Miss C disagreed that this had happened and also said that they had thrown out items left outside the property, which she had intended returning to get. During our investigation the council accepted that there had been a verbal agreement about the hob and oven. They also admitted that they had made a mistake in that, when they were unable to contact the new tenant, they had not told Miss C, and had instead disposed of the items. They explained that the laminate flooring was damaged during the normal course of work and that they had the right to remove it, as Miss C had not done so before returning the keys. They said that the items left outside the house were disposed of after Miss C had returned the keys and stopped paying rent for the property. We upheld the complaint as the council had not kept to the verbal agreement they had with Miss C. However, as they had already apologised and had decided not to recharge her for the costs incurred when she moved out, we did not find it necessary to make recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201301805 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the level of support and help that school staff provided to his child, who had additional support needs as well as other disorders. Mr C also said that staff (who he said were not properly trained) had inappropriately restrained his child, and that had adequate support been in place, events could have been avoided. He was particularly unhappy with the handling of one specific incident. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to reasonably investigate and respond to his concerns. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that staff had used physical restraint on one occasion when staff at the school assessed that the child was a danger to themselves and to others, and the council said minimum force was used. We recognised that this had been an extremely stressful and upsetting situation, but found no evidence that school staff had failed to act in line with the risk assessment in place. We also found no evidence to support Mr C's position that physical restraint was used on a number of occasions. The council were satisfied that, prior to the child's needs escalating, staff had been sufficiently trained to meet those needs and had put support in place to do that. We were satisfied that the school responded appropriately to the incidents Mr C complained about and that as a result of the complaint the council had carried out several reviews and used his child's case to highlight learning and improve practice. We were also satisfied that the council had carried out a detailed investigation into Mr C's concerns and had provided reasonable responses to the points he raised.

Mrs C complained about how her child's primary school dealt with an incident involving her child and a teacher. She said that the school had not communicated appropriately with her as a parent and that she had been unaware of what was upsetting her child and why they were reluctant to go to school. She complained to the council that she was not told about the incident, was not involved in a meeting with her child and school staff, and did not receive a full response from the school. Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Mrs C, the school and the council. We also reviewed the records of the school's investigation and the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint, after which we upheld her complaints. We found that, given the seriousness of the complaints made by her child, Mrs C should have been included and involved in discussions. We also found that the council's record of the handling of her complaint did not match the response she received, so we made recommendations to the council about this.

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed their tendering process when undertaking a public works project. She said that work had been given to another person which should have been given to her company. She said the council wanted the project to be a voluntary/community-led project and she disagreed with that view and was then excluded by the council from the decision-making process. We found that at a meeting with council staff and others, Ms C had agreed that an independent consultation should be undertaken to gauge support for the project and consider the most appropriate body to take it forward. We also found that the independent community consultation was done in accordance with the council's procurement guidelines. In light of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305959 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's children had been placed on the child protection register, and she complained that the head teacher at her son's school had made unsubstantiated allegations to the council's social work department about her parenting ability. Mrs C also complained that the head teacher had unreasonably failed to ask for the social work department's record to be corrected, despite later claiming that her remarks about the situation had been recorded inaccurately. The head teacher had also refused to meet with Mrs C to discuss her complaint. The council said that as the head teacher disputed the accuracy of the records and as she had not had the opportunity to view them before Mrs C complained, the council did not consider them accurate. They said, however, that the remarks were not the substantive reason for placing Mrs C's children on the register. The council's investigation found that the head teacher's decision not to meet with Mrs C was based on advice from senior colleagues in the education department. The council also said that due to the personal nature of Mrs C's correspondence, the education department had been preparing to deal with the matter as a formal complaint, but this was overtaken by events, when Mrs C formalised her complaints. They said they recognised that it was inappropriate for formal records of conversations not to be agreed by all parties, and so they had taken steps to improve inter-department communication. They were, however, unable to share with Mrs C any details of actions taken in respect of the head teacher. Our investigation found that it was not possible to determine the accuracy of the record, as it was disputed by the head teacher. The evidence did, however, show that the head teacher's remarks were not the reason that the children were placed on the register. We found that the education department had failed to request that the record be amended, despite being aware that the head teacher disputed the remarks attributed to her, a

Ms C's child was a pupil at a school and was the target of a bullying incident. The school investigated, and suspended two pupils as a result of their enquiries. Ms C's child continued to feel intimidated by one of the pupils and became unwell, resulting in an absence from school. Ms C, the school and the council were all involved in trying to find a way to help her child return to school, and a number of measures were introduced to stop further bullying. Ms C's child went back to school but, after further incidents, Ms C was not satisfied that the measures protected her child and decided to request a place at another school. Ms C complained to us that the council failed to respond reasonably to her concerns about engagement and communication with her and her child. She also complained that they did not follow anti-bullying policies and procedures. Our investigation upheld both of Ms C's complaints. We found that, although the council were willing to engage with her and had suggested positive steps such as mediation, they had not always taken her child's views into account and had not adequately documented their decision-making process. We also found that they failed to record bullying incidents in line with the anti-bullying policy.

Mr C was unhappy with the council's lack of action in dealing with three large trees outside his home, which he said were not only dangerous, but also overhung his garden. Mr C also said that the trees, which had broken branches hanging from them, had caused damage to cars in his driveway. Mr C reported the matter to the council in January 2013 and again in October 2013. In December 2013 he was told this would be dealt with as an emergency and a council representative called at his home in January 2014 to look at the trees. As the work had still not been undertaken in June 2014 he again contacted the council. He told us in August 2014 that the trees had still not been trimmed. We found that a works order was put in place with effect from October 2013 with a completion date of October 2014 so, technically, the council still had time to complete the work by their target. However, we found that they did not tell Mr C what that target date was. This failure to pass on information led to Mr C's belief that there was a delay and, for that reason, we upheld his complaint.

Mr C complained about planning permission granted for an area of ground behind his house. He said that in determining the permission, the council relied on incorrect information and allowed a building to be erected that overlooked his house. He said that the council had dealt inconsistently with this application, and a site visit should have been made so that officers would have better understood the implications of the development on his home. He said that his complaints to the council about these matters had not been handled properly. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that while certain incorrect information had been reported in a council document, the responsibility for ensuring its accuracy lay with the developer and not with the council. Despite this, we found that the planning application was determined on its merits and, while a site visit was not mandatory, it was likely that one had been made. There was no evidence to suggest that the council had dealt inconsistently with this matter in comparison to its normal decision-making process and, indeed, it seemed that the council had gone further than necessary in considering the water management implications of the application. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201305215 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C arranged to have work done to his driveway, which also affected the pavement outside his property. He had contacted the council in September 2011, who wrote back with an informal opinion that the work would be classed as permitted development (meaning that planning permission would not be necessary). However, they went on to explain that if Mr C wanted formal confirmation that it was permitted development, he would have to apply for a certificate of lawfulness. They also explained that he would have to apply for this in any event if the work required a separate type of permit because it affected the public road, which it did. Around two years later, Mr C wanted to go ahead with the work and was unhappy when he learned that a certificate of lawfulness would be required, as he felt that the council’s letter meant this was not the case. He was also unhappy at the level of detail the council wanted him to send them and complained that they had not properly investigated his complaint about the way a council employee spoke to his wife. After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser explained that the council's requirement for a certificate of lawfulness was common practice in most local authorities. He did not consider the council had acted unreasonably, and indicated that the level of detail the council requested was in keeping with what they reasonably required under planning legislation. Although we considered their letter of September 2011 could have perhaps explained the position more clearly, the evidence indicated that there had been no maladministration. In terms of the council’s investigation into their employee’s conduct at Mr C’s property, we considered that they could have done little more to investigate this, beyond interviewing Mr C's wife (and possibly the contractor who was on site). We recognised that this had been a long-running stressful matter for Mr C and his wife, but we consi

Mr C complained to the council that his child had been allocated to a composite class, where he felt the child's wellbeing was not being met. He said the school had not followed the guidelines for composite classes, and had not properly considered his concerns about bullying and his child’s welfare. Our investigation considered the council's policy on composite classes and reviewed the evidence from meetings with the school and the council's responses. We found that the council had delegated authority on the composition of classes to the head teacher, who had operated within the guidelines laid down by the council. We also found that the school had listened to Mr C's concerns about his child’s welfare, and had told Mr C what they would do to address them. Mr C had not, however, raised his concern about bullying directly with the school, and so they had not had a chance to address this. We said that he should raise any future concerns with them. Related reading View Decision Report 201401799 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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