SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the road outside his property was flooding in moderate to heavy rainfall, and that this was affecting his property. He said that the council were failing to keep the road drains free of debris in his area. When we made enquiries to the council about this, we found that they had taken appropriate action to address the problem, and we were satisfied that the complaint had been resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201304759 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a landlord of a property classed as a house of multiple occupancy. When he asked the council to uplift bulk waste he says he was told that he had to pay for the service, as his premises were commercial. Mr C disputed this and said that he paid council tax and if his premises were being classed as commercial he should have been paying business rates. He told us that it took the council three months to respond to his enquiries and complaints about the matter, and he still did not have a satisfactory explanation. He complained to us about the classification of his property and about the council's complaints handling. We found that the council had not in fact classified Mr C's property as commercial, and we did not uphold that complaint. We did find, however, that he had been given misleading information that caused him to believe this. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's complaints handling. We noted that they had written to him apologising for the delay in providing their written response, and that the information he had been given about a charge was inaccurate. They confirmed that there would be no charges involved in arranging a bulk uplift. They also arranged for the correct procedural information to be given to senior management at the call centre he had contacted, which was to be communicated to all staff dealing with the public to ensure that customers are accurately advised in future.

Mr C complained on behalf of a local action group about the council's handling of a planning application to build on a site occupied by a commercial property. Mr C said the council unreasonably failed to implement a planning clause requiring replacement of a tree; failed to respond appropriately to concerns about the protection of another tree; and unreasonably failed to obtain information on the appearance of proposed garage doors. He also said the council wrongly claimed that, at a Scottish Government Reporter's meeting, the roads department representative did not support a proposal for planters along the pavement at the front of the new building; and that the council unreasonably delayed in responding to letters about the development. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He explained that the council could not have used the planning condition to require the replacement of the tree as it was not located in the application site, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, he said that the council could have used different provisions to require another company (that owned the land where the tree was located) to replace it. We were not satisfied that the council took appropriate steps to secure the replacement of the tree, or that they took all appropriate steps to safeguard the other tree. In both cases, we were also critical of the council's failure to provide this office with actual evidence of their actions, and we made recommendations to address all these failings. Our adviser explained that no public consultation was required about the detail of the garage doors and the council's planning officer was entitled to deal with this under delegated powers. On the matter of what was said at the Scottish Government Reporter's meeting, there was insufficient objective evidence of what the roads department representative actually said. We did not uphold these complaints. We upheld the complaint that the council delayed in providing info

Miss C complained that the council restricted her access to the noise complaint reporting system and failed to acknowledge her concerns as complaints about antisocial behaviour. She also complained that they unreasonably imposed restrictions on her contact with them, through their unacceptable actions policy. Our investigation found that Miss C had met the criteria for bringing their policy into effect, in terms of both her behaviour and her demands. We also found that, although the council had told her they would not in future respond to Miss C's emails or phone calls, they had put in place alternative means for her to complain about antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance and had continued to receive and respond to her letters. We did not uphold her complaints, as we found no evidence that the council had breached their policy, and noted they had committed to a regular review of the restrictions imposed on Miss C. Related reading View Decision Report 201202410 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council were seeking to recover outstanding council tax for a property he rented in 2010. He was unhappy because before terminating the lease he had contacted the council and was told that, as the lease was for less than six months, the landlord would be responsible for the council tax. He explained that he had not got back his deposit on the flat, as the landlord had said they would use it to pay any outstanding council tax. The landlord did not, however, do so. In response to his complaint, the council acknowledged that they gave Mr C inaccurate information when he contacted them. However, they said that after this call they had obtained copies of his lease, which showed it was a six month contract and not a shorter one, as had been understood from the earlier contact. As the lease was for six months, Mr C was due to pay the council tax, even if the lease was terminated early. We considered the information provided by both Mr C and the council. We were satisfied that the original lease had been for six months and so the council were entitled to seek council tax from him, and not the landlord. Although we could see that they had told Mr C that he would not be liable for council tax as the lease was under six months, we could not say whether they told him this in error, or because he did not give full details of the original lease. As Mr C was liable for the outstanding council tax, and as we could not determine the basis on which the council advised him that he would not be liable, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304403 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C corresponded with and complained to the council about their maintenance of a park. He was dissatisfied at the end of the complaints procedure and raised his complaints with us, including that they had not responded appropriately to his complaints. We found that there was evidence that the council had reasonably maintained the park during the period concerned. However, we also found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints because they did not provide full responses to the issues he raised, and on one occasion provided inaccurate information.

Ms C complained that the council were seeking to recover council tax and penalty charges from her that related to the year 1999. She said that she had paid all outstanding debts and that, although she could not prove this, neither could the council prove that she did not make payment. We considered the information she provided and information obtained from our enquiries to the council. Councils do not usually keep copies of all correspondence in respect of historic debts, and in this case the council were able to show us that they issued a council tax bill and reminders at the time, as required by the regulations. As they were able to show that Ms C was billed at the time, and as they had no record of payment being received, we found no evidence that they failed to comply with their responsibilities under the council tax regulations. As there was no evidence of administrative failure in the way this matter was dealt with, we could not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201303148 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council did not tell him that his housing benefit entitlement had been reduced to recover outstanding benefit overpayments. We found from our investigation that, although Mr C could not recall receiving advice about overpayments, the council were able to provide copies of the relevant notices, which were correctly addressed. They also confirmed that the notices had not been returned undelivered. Mr C told us that he had been unaware that he had a duty to inform the council of any change in his circumstances which might affect his benefit claim. We were, however, satisfied that this information was available to claimants, and there was no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to notify Mr C of the overpayment. Related reading View Decision Report 201301434 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council failed to follow the appropriate tendering and procurement process for communal repairs to her close. She said that they had ignored a report requiring them to re-tender due to a lack of competitive quotes, as only two of the four companies approached had responded. She also said that the council costs were far higher than her privately obtained quotes, and that they had misled her by asking her to submit quotes that could not in fact be used as the suppliers were not on the council's approved list of contractors. Our investigation found that the council had already apologised for the confusion about which contractors could form part of the tendering process, and had produced a new information leaflet, setting out the statutory repair process clearly for private residents. We also found that although the report on the tendering process recommended re-tendering, there was no requirement for the council to accept this, and that re-tendering could have resulted in higher costs. We did, however, criticise the council for poor record-keeping, as the decision-making audit trail was unclear. Related reading View Decision Report 201202395 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C lives in a tenement flat. The space between the tenement in which her flat is situated and the next tenement was occupied by a single storey shop. In December 2004, the owner obtained conditional planning consent to demolish the shop and build a three storey town house in the gap. However, they did not do this and, shortly before planning permission expired, a different applicant applied for planning permission for the site. Under new planning procedures introduced in August 2009, that application should have been taken forward without notifying neighbours of the plans and should have been determined by planning officers under delegated procedures. However, the council did notify neighbours. When Ms C went to see the plans, there were none for the newer application, and the file on the earlier application had been mislaid. The new applicant was apparently unable to provide the council with a copy of the 2004 approval and related plans. In the first half of 2010, Ms C sent four letters to the council’s planning service. Eventually in May 2011, the council prepared a report of handling about the newer application. In this, Ms C’s letters and those of others were treated as objections to the proposals. The relevant council committee, however, granted planning consent on conditions broadly similar to those in the initial approval. Despite the fact that the 2004 file had not been found, the May 2011 decision said that the development should proceed in accordance with plans submitted and approved in 2004. After Ms C pursued her complaint with the council, in February 2012 a third application was submitted. It was approved in August 2012 on the basis of plans compatible with those submitted in 2009 for a building warrant (which was approved in December 2009). Ms C’s complaint to us had five elements. We upheld the first of these - that the council unreasonably took 18 months to present the further application to committee for approval - and made two reco

Mr C's partner submitted a claim to the council for damage to their car. After a number of messages from Mr C about delay in dealing with this, the council refused the claim, saying that there was no fault or negligence attributable to them. Mr C disputed this on a number of occasions and asked for the decision to be reviewed. He then complained about the way the council were handling matters. The council upheld part of his complaint but said that the complaints procedure did not allow for a review of the decision on his claim and that he should seek legal advice if he remained unhappy. Mr C wrote to the council again saying that their response had been unreasonable, in particular with relation to his claim, but the council repeated their decision. Mr C continued to write to the council, and they wrote again, saying that while their decision on the insurance claim was one for the courts, they recognised that they had not been as helpful as they could have been and that their explanations could have been clearer. As a consequence, they said, the claims process was being reviewed. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to operate and comply with reasonable procedures concerning his claim and because of this they did not deal properly with his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint as our investigation confirmed that there were defects in the council's internal claims process and that the council failed to follow their own stated procedures when dealing with his complaint.

Ms C's complaint was about proposals to site a doctors' surgery behind her home. Ms C had objected to the original proposals in 2004. The acknowledgment of her objection indicated that she would be told the outcome, but that did not happen. Consent for the initial application was issued in 2006, after the application was referred to Scottish Ministers. Ms C, unaware of this, obtained planning consent and a building warrant for a rear kitchen extension to her property which was completed in 2007. In late 2009 an amended application was submitted for the surgery proposals. Ms C made three complaints. We upheld two - that the council failed to tell her that the initial planning permission had been granted, which our investigation found was clearly the case, and that they failed to respond appropriately to her complaints correspondence. On the latter we found that the timescales exceeded the council's published targets. We did not uphold her complaint that the council failed to ensure the site plans were updated to show her extension, as site plans were the responsibility of the developer. However, as we found that the council's geographical management system did not show Ms C's kitchen extension we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C said that shortly after the council launched the commonwealth graduate fund (CGF) in November 2011 he phoned them to ask about his eligibilty for an award and described his circumstances. He said that he did not receive a response and he then sent two email enquiries in December 2011. When he did not receive a response to a further enquiry to a local councillor, he made a formal complaint to the council. He said he was later told that the criteria for the award had changed and he was not eligible. In the intervening period, the published criteria on the council's website was changed, in particular a residency requirement was introduced which excluded residents outwith the council's boundary. Mr C felt that council staff had decided that the CGF should not apply to people in his situation. He told us that he believed that they had deliberately ignored his phone call and deleted his emails until the criteria were changed, with a view to making him ineligible. He also believed that the criteria were not changed on 22 November 2011, as advised by the council, as the information on the council’s website was not updated until 12 January 2012. He was also concerned about the fairness of the decision to restrict the scheme to those who live in the city as he believed this was discriminatory to older applicants with families who are more likely to live outwith the city boundary. Our investigation found that the council had dealt with Mr C in a fair and equitable way. While acknowledging that his initial emails were not received as they were treated as ‘spam’, we noted that the council had apologised to him, had taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again and had explained to him the action they had taken. Our view was that once the council did receive Mr C's application, it was dealt with fairly and promptly, as was all his subsequent correspondence on the matter. The council's decision that Mr C was not eligible for the award was based on the fact t

Mr C complained about the way the council responded to his complaints about the care provided by the council's social work services, and in particular by his son's mental health officer. His complaint had been considered by an independent complaints review committee hearing, as required by the statutory social work complaints procedure. We reviewed the process the council followed and were satisfied that they had investigated and responded to his complaint in line with the social work complaints procedure. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201200229 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the council about a social services investigation into child protection issues affecting his family. Mr C said that the council had not handled his first complaint appropriately and had refused to fully respond to two further complaints he raised. Although we noted that there were significant delays in Mr C's first complaint progressing through the council's social work complaints procedure, we considered that the council had handled it appropriately and in line with their procedures. We found that the delay was due to exceptional weather conditions over the Christmas and New Year period, along with problems the council had in understanding the detailed letters of complaint that Mr C had submitted. We also found evidence showing that Mr C was given the opportunity to provide evidence to support all the elements of his first complaint and to provide his version of events at a complaints review committee hearing. Mr C's second complaint was about a video recording he had made, which apparently showed that social workers had provided inaccurate information at a social work child protection case conference. After obtaining legal advice, the council refused to review the recording because they said they believed it was inadmissible as evidence. They later departed from this view, and said that they were unsure whether it was lawful to use a recording that had been made covertly (ie not made openly), without the consent of the staff involved. We have previously obtained advice about covert recordings, which allows us to provide a clearer view that an authority, such as the council or our office, may consider evidence even if it was obtained through covert recording without the prior consent of all parties involved. Relevant material in respect of a case which has been obtained covertly, without the prior consent of all parties, is not as a rule inadmissible as evidence. So, when considering a case, both the Ombudsman and the council are obliged t

Mrs C raised a complaint on behalf of her son about the council's handling of an allegation of plagiarism (passing off someone else's work as one's own) in relation to his school work. In particular, Mrs C was unhappy that, after admitting that the plagiarism accusation had been made in error, the council would not allow her son to submit as his higher music composition the piece of work which had been the subject of the allegation. Our investigation established, however, that there was evidence that music staff had given their professional opinion that the piece of work was not of a satisfactory standard and would not have passed at higher level. We were also satisfied that the evidence showed that the council had taken reasonable steps to remedy the complaint by giving Mrs C's son further opportunities to submit the composition element of his higher music. Related reading View Decision Report 201102124 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a private landlord. As his tenant had delayed in paying him rent, he asked the council for help in 'safeguarding' the tenant's housing benefit payment by having the benefit paid directly to him. A council can agree this type of request where a tenant is eight weeks or more in arrears of rent. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably ignored information in his letter to them and failed to take appropriate action. He said that the council had not used their powers to recover housing benefit paid to the tenant before the Christmas and New Year holiday period. Mr C said that his tenant left the tenancy early in the New Year, owing him two months rent. After complaining to the council, he remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. This was because our investigation found that his letter said that the tenant was not eight weeks in arrears. We found that the council did authorise a payment to the tenant just before the festive period, but that at this point the tenant was not yet eight weeks in arrears. We found that the payment had not been made in error, and that that the council's actions were reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201100106 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C decided to erect a boundary fence at his property, having firstly checked in the housing estate where he lived to see what other fences had been erected. He did not approach the council to check whether planning consent was required before proceeding. The council wrote to Mr C saying that planning consent was required because the fence was more than one metre high. However, they also told him that if he submitted a retrospective planning application (an application relating to work carried out in the past) for the existing fence it was unlikely that this would be approved, because they considered that the current height of the fence affected vehicle and pedestrian safety. Mr C complained because he believed that this advice effectively denied him the opportunity to apply retrospectively for planning consent. He claimed that there were inconsistencies in the council’s handling of the matter, particularly in the responses he received when he complained that other residents had been allowed to apply for planning permission or that the council had not taken action to require the height of a fence to be reduced. Mr C had also put his property on the market, and complained that the council contacted his selling agents about serving an enforcement notice on his property. We did not uphold the complaints. After taking advice from one of our planning advisers, we decided that the council’s advice to Mr C was reasonable. We found that it was good practice to tell him what the likely recommendation might be if he submitted a retrospective planning application for the unauthorised fence. We did think that the council could have made it clearer that he could still apply for planning consent, but we also took the view that it was implicit in what they said that there was an opportunity to do so. We also found no evidence of inconsistency in the handling of Mr C’s case when considered against others. Finally, we found that, although the practice of contacting sellin

Ms C, an advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of Mr A. Mr A was concerned that, after he moved to a new house, disability access was removed from the property where he used to live and he could no longer visit the person who still lived there. Mr A was unhappy that the council decided not to recommend that the disabled access be reinstated. We did not, however, find that the council had done anything wrong in reaching this decision, and we also considered that they had taken his human rights into account when doing so. Ms C also complained about the council's handling of her representations and their failure to initially recognise her as Mr A's advocate. We found that there had been failures in the handling of her correspondence for which the council had apologised. The council also apologised for failing to recognise her as Mr A's advocate and had taken action to ensure that, where someone is representing a third party, this is dealt with properly in the future. As they had taken action to address their failures, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201102623 as a PDF (16.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's daughter has a severe learning disability. For some years, Mrs C has accessed a certain level of respite care for her. When her daughter's respite allocation was reduced, Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of the decision to do so. The council's complaints review committee had already considered the complaint, and our investigation was about whether the review committee had followed appropriate procedures and policies and had taken into account all the matters it should have. Our investigation found that the review committee had been provided with all relevant information, including the information provided by Mrs C, before arriving at their decisions on her complaints. However, it was clear that, while handling Mrs C's representations, some misunderstanding had arisen between the council and Mrs C. This caused Mrs C distress and worry. The council accepted that there was a need for clear and concise information to be conveyed to service users. We also drew their attention to the fact that it is good administrative practice for notes of telephone calls to be taken. Although we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, we made a recommendation based on her experience of contact with the council about this matter. Recommendation We recommended that the council: • consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the handling of this case. Related reading View Decision Report 201101704 as a PDF (21.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way that the council processed his claim for housing and council tax benefits. Mr C said that that they discriminated against him by asking him to provide a written valuation (costing £150) of a property he owned, which was on the UK mainland. He said that councils elsewhere in the UK obtain valuation information themselves, without the applicant having to pay. Mr C also complained that the council inappropriately referred payment arrears to a debt collecting agency and failed to handle his complaint in an effective and reasonable way. The council acknowledged that there had been unnecessary delays in the handling of Mr C's benefit claim due to it being administered incorrectly. The council had issued Mr C with the wrong claim form and did not ask him for all the information to support his claim at the one time or in a timely manner. They also acknowledged that Mr C's benefit had not been cancelled immediately when he told them that his wife had started full time employment. They explained that they had asked Mr C to obtain a valuation as District Valuer Services (a division of the Valuation Agency Office) do not provide valuations for properties outside mainland UK. We upheld the complaint about the processing of Mr C's benefit claims. We found evidence that the problems arose because individual members of staff did not properly assess the information they had or take the correct action based on it, but we found that the council had taken action to resolve this. They had also apologised for incorrectly processing Mr C's claims and did not seek to recover the overpaid benefit. Our investigation also found that the council followed the correct procedure when asking Mr C to provide written evidence showing the current value of his property. However, we made a recommendation about how they might handle such cases in future. We did not uphold Mr C's other complaints. We found that the council had correctly followed their procedures in referring

Mr C alleged that social work services were unhelpful with regard to the care of his late mother, who had dementia. He said that he was not properly involved in her care and was pushed into making decisions. He felt that when he made a formal complaint about the matter, the council showed a reluctance to deal with it and did not investigate appropriately. Specifically, Mr C told us that the council unreasonably failed to provide patient transport to take his mother to respite care; for 21 months unreasonably failed to provide information on his mother's care and made inappropriate decisions about her care; unreasonably failed to remove a social worker from Mr C's mother's case; and failed to handle the complaint properly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation revealed that no request had ever been made to transport Mr C's mother to respite care, nor had she been identified as requiring transport. In any case, there was no requirement for the council to offer this. The records showed that Mr C had been appropriately involved in decision making and had been kept fully informed. While it was clear that Mr C wanted a named social worker removed from his mother's case, he did not give reasons despite being asked to do so. In the circumstances, and as continuity was considered to be important to Mr C's mother, no change was made. The records also confirmed that the council had handled Mr C's complaint satisfactorily, and that he had failed to provide evidence to support his complaint, again despite being asked to do so. Related reading View Decision Report 201004546 as a PDF (17.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C opted to pay his council tax instalments online. From 1 April 2008 the council required that, for those paying in this way, payments should start with a specified payment on 1 April and nine equal instalments on the first day of each succeeding month. When Mr C was late with his payments in April and May 2010, the council petitioned the sheriff for a summary warrant. This meant Mr C had to pay ten per cent more on the outstanding amount. Mr C told us that the council: issued the annual demand too late, allowing him insufficient time to make payment; discriminated against him as he did not pay by direct debit; failed to obtain proper authorisation to issue a summary warrant; unnecessarily shared information with their collection agents; and had not handled the complaint in accordance with their procedures. Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had complied with the relevant regulations with regard to their annual demand and the process for obtaining a summary warrant. We also found that the council regarded payment by direct debit as the most efficient means of collection and so offered greater flexibility to such payers which we considered reasonable. There was no direct evidence that the council shared unnecessary information with the collection agents. Finally, although Mr C had pursued the complaint for over a year, the council had not been responsible for significant delay. Related reading View Decision Report 201100281 as a PDF (17.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's mother (with Mr C's help and following discussion with a social work officer) applied for grant assistance to install a walk-in shower in her home. Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of the housing improvement grant. In particular, he was concerned about the adequacy of the information provided and the level of contact with him during the processing of the application. He also complained that the council failed to deal with his complaint properly. Our investigation found that the council had correctly handled the improvement grant but that they had failed to contact Mr C about additional works required to the bathroom which if not carried out would have resulted in the application being rejected. The council had instead contacted the contractor direct on behalf of Mr C. We also found that, while the council had handled the complaint in line with their complaints process, they had failed to respond to one letter within the timescales set down in their complaints process. The council apologised to Mr C for the delay in responding to that letter. Related reading View Decision Report 201100537 as a PDF (14.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a tenant of a housing association for approximately 17 months. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to racial abuse, intimidation and vandalism to his property perpetrated by other tenants and youths in the area. Mr C felt he had been targeted particularly due to his nationality. Mr C presented as homeless to Glasgow City Council having abandoned his tenancy. He brought his complaints to us as he felt the housing association had failed to follow their anti-social behaviour policy, and had failed to take any effective action to prevent the abuse he had suffered as a tenant. It was accepted that Mr C had experienced a serious degree of anti-social behaviour. Having reviewed the information provided by the housing association including complaint logs, minutes of meetings, letters to tenants and a contract between themselves and the GCSS (the Glasgow Community Safety Service), we found the association to have followed their policy in relation to Mr C's complaints, particularly in terms of responding timeously, and classifying his case as category A due to the racial nature of the behaviour. We, therefore, did not uphold the first complaint. However, we did uphold the second complaint, which referred to the association's failure to take any effective action to prevent the abuse. Although the association had installed CCTV on three separate occasions, unfortunately no perpetrators were ever caught or identified as a result. The remedies within the association's policy could not be enforced due to a lack of evidence and identification of suspects. However, we found that the association had placed a clear burden upon Mr C to gather information himself, and that this burden was unreasonable. He had provided individual addresses on a number of occasions, but the association said because Mr C could not identify particular people for particular incidents, they could not act on this information. We felt further enquiries could have been m