SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to consult appropriately before deciding to construct a new water treatment works at a site neighbouring his property. He said Scottish Water had deliberately misled his parliamentary and local council representatives about the process used to select this site and that the site selection process had lacked transparency. Scottish Water accepted that some of their responses to Mr C could have explained the site selection process more clearly. They said the construction of the treatment works was essential and that they had followed the appropriate site selection process, before consulting with the local community. They said they had followed their consultation code, which had been approved by the Scottish Government. We found that Scottish Water were not obliged under their consultation code to consult with local residents during the site selection process. Consultation had been carried out prior to the construction of the new treatment works, which had received the appropriate planning permission. Although Scottish Water had acknowledged that they could have provided fuller responses to Mr C's enquiries, there was no evidence they had deliberately misled his elected representatives. We also found that the site selection process was an internal process and the evidence available showed it had been appropriately conducted in line with these internal procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201305510 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the board because she said she had concerns about the way in which it managed her waiting time before she received a clinic appointment. She also complained about the appointment itself, the examination and conclusions. Mrs C said she was left frustrated and depressed as a consequence, and sought private treatment to have a knee operation. She said that, if the board had treated her appropriately, this should have been the outcome of her clinic appointment. We investigated the complaint and took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a surgeon specialising in the musculoskeletal system). We found that in relation to waiting times, the board followed Scottish Government guidance. As Mrs C had informed the board that she would not be available for three periods of time during the indicated waiting time period (12 weeks), her waiting time was put back by a similar time. In the event, she was seen 13 weeks after the appointment was requested. Similarly, notwithstanding her private treatment, Mrs C's examination and management of her knee problem was in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406436 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C said her son was admitted to Ninewells Hospital with a suspected infectious disease and was kept in hospital for two nights. Mrs C said she was told that her son's treatment would be free, but during the discharge process she was advised she would have to pay for his treatment as they were visitors to the UK. Mrs C complained that it was unreasonable that she was charged for his care and treatment. Her concerns included that her son's treatment was not immediately necessary and the board's actions were contrary to Scottish Government Guidance CEL 09 (2010) (Overseas Visitors' Liability to Pay Charges for NHS Care and Services) as she was not given the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether, or to what extent, to proceed with treatment. We obtained independent medical advice on the complaint from one of our medical advisers, a consultant in general medicine. The evidence showed that the initial impression provided to Mrs C by the board was that her son's treatment would be free. The board failed to follow the Scottish Government guidance with sufficient accuracy, and there were opportunities that should been taken to discuss the likely charges with Mrs C at the time of her son's admission to hospital. However, the type of treatment her son received was chargeable. It seemed unlikely that, had Mrs C been presented with the 'undertaking to pay' form at the time of her son's admission to hospital, she would have refused to sign the form, as he was clearly very unwell and in need of medical treatment. We also noted that Mrs C signed the 'undertaking to pay' form at the time of her son's discharge. We therefore considered that, on balance, it was reasonable that Mrs C was charged for her son's care and treatment.

Mr C said he had been referred to the ear, nose and throat clinic by his GP. He had been offered an appointment at a Raigmore Hospital which was too far from his home and had requested an appointment at Belford Hospital closer to where he lived. Despite this he had been offered a second appointment at Raigmore Hospital, before being offered an appointment at Belford Hospital. Mr C complained he was seen outside the waiting time guarantee of 18 weeks from referral to treatment. Mr C also complained that he had been offered an appointment with psychological services some 18 months after his referral, which also breached the referral to treatment target. We found the offer of an appointment to Mr C of an appointment at Raigmore was within the board’s published policies for appointment management. The board had mitigation in place due to the distances patients had to travel to attend these appointments. When Mr C refused this appointment, he was no longer covered by the Scottish Government waiting time target, so we did not uphold his complaint about delay for the ear, nose and throat clinic. We found there was an unreasonable delay in providing an appointment with psychological services and upheld his complaint about this. The board had, however, provided evidence that they had made significant improvements to their waiting list management and that waiting times had consequently been substantially reduced.

After Mr C submitted a planning application, the planning authority concerned consulted Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) about the application. Although Mr C accepted that consultation with SNH was a valid part of the planning process, he felt their contact with the planning authority was excessive and inappropriate. We found that the evidence showed that SNH had a role to play in Mr C’s application and that they were in regular contact with the planning authority. As part of our investigation we also took independent advice from our planning adviser who was of the view that SNH’s contact was not inappropriate. Although we took account of Mr C’s concerns, we agreed that the evidence did not indicate inappropriate discussions or collusion with the planning authority. Mr C also felt SNH’s consultation response contained inaccurate information which, in his view, caused the planning authority to refuse permission. The evidence indicated that although SNH originally felt that if Mr C’s application was to be granted he should take some additional steps, they softened their position after the planning authority refused the application. Our adviser confirmed that SNH had acted in line with the precautionary approach detailed in Scottish Government guidance and we also considered it clear that SNH’s consultation response was not the sole reason for refusing the application. Viewed as a whole, we did not consider the evidence showed that SNH unreasonably submitted inaccurate information. Related reading View Decision Report 201301661 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about development at a caravan park near his home. He complained that two lodges at the site did not meet the criteria to be treated as caravans and felt that these should have required planning permission. Mr C said that the council had failed to allow the planning system to run its course and had been negligent in not requiring a planning application for the earthworks for the lodges (they were located on a steep hillside). Mr C complained that the local plan for the area had not been taken into account and that the council had unreasonably included provision for 14 new stances at the site when granting a new site licence for the caravan park. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had determined that the lodges did not meet the definition of a caravan but that the decision on whether to take action was a discretionary matter. The council took the view that no planning purpose would be served by taking enforcement action and we received advice that this was a reasonable decision taken following due consideration. Similarly, we found that the council's decision to accept the earthworks at the site as permitted development to be reasonable. We received advice that as this was a decision that the council was entitled to make which they duly considered, it could only be challenged by judicial review. We found that there was nothing to suggest that the local plan had not been taken into consideration. Finally, we were advised that the inclusion of 14 new stances in the site licence fell within the planning scope established by a certificate of lawful use or development issued by the Scottish Government. Related reading View Decision Report 201400128 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had assumed that his charitable organisation did not pay water charges as he said he was never issued with a water bill in any of the organisation's previous addresses. He said that when he received a letter from Business Stream saying that they believed his premises to be empty he phoned and advised them he had occupied the premises since January 2010. Business Stream issued a bill and directed Mr C to information about the 'Scottish Government Exemption Scheme'. However it was discovered that this scheme would not apply to him. Mr C complained and Business Stream's Chief Executive wrote to explain that Business Stream had made several attempts to make contact with him and could not have issued a bill sooner. Business Stream offered to reassess Mr C's charges backdated to January 2010 as a goodwill gesture. Mr C was unhappy with the decision and was unhappy that Business Stream had not replied to some of his letters. Business Stream told us that they had located Mr C's organisation through the Scottish Assessors Association but could not issue a bill until they had confirmed it. They provided evidence that they had tried to make contact and it was only when Mr C phoned in response to their second letter that they issued a bill. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the bill had been unreasonably delayed. We did uphold his complaint that Business Stream had failed to properly handle his complaint as they failed to respond to some of his letters within their procedural timescales. They had already offered compensatory payment and goodwill gestures that we felt were reasonable. We asked them to remind their staff of complaints handling timescales.

Miss C complained to us about her dental practice's handling of a complaint she made. She said that the practice's response to her complaint was inadequate, as it failed to address all the questions she had asked, and did not include comments from two of the three dentists she had complained about. After investigating the matter, we upheld Miss C's complaint. We found that the staff member who dealt with Miss C's complaint had only sought comments from one of the dentists involved, and the other two had been given no opportunity to comment. The staff member also failed to check the response, to ensure that it addressed all of the relevant points of the complaint. While the dentist who did respond answered Miss C's questions relevant to the care he provided, and apologised appropriately for some aspects of treatment, the lack of coordination meant that the overall response was poor. We also found that the complaints handling policy used by the practice appeared to be out of date and did not meet the Scottish Government's requirements for managing complaints about health services. This meant that the practice had failed to meet relevant requirements, such as including information in their acknowledgement letter about the complaints handling process and Miss C's right to bring her complaint to us. The policy also had incorrect information on where to direct customers if they remained dissatisfied, as it said that complaints could be directed to the board (instead of us).

An advocacy agency complained on behalf of a client (Mr C) that the council had failed to take reasonable account of his circumstances when considering his application for a Community Care Grant under the Scottish Welfare Fund. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint because our investigation found no evidence that in their handling of Mr C's application, the council had not taken reasonable account of his circumstances or considered the matter properly under both the Scottish Government guidance and their own procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201405826 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained that the care and treatment provided by the prison health centre to her client (Mr A) for pain in his arm was unreasonable. In particular, Mr A had been unhappy because a nurse had questioned why he was being prescribed a certain type of pain killer. Mr A felt the nurse did not have the authority to do that. We reviewed Mr A's medical records which confirmed the nurse had concerns about Mr A receiving the pain killer whilst also being prescribed methadone. His medical record also confirmed the doctor was unsure what kind of pain Mr A was feeling and felt further investigation was needed. The doctor prescribed the pain killer for a two week period and also referred Mr A's case to neurology. We took independent medical advice from a GP adviser who confirmed that there was no issue with a clinician - either a doctor or nurse - clarifying why a patient was being prescribed certain medication. Our adviser also confirmed that Mr A's case was reviewed regularly by the doctor and proper steps were taken to explore the type of pain he was experiencing. In addition, our adviser said Mr A was prescribed an appropriate alternative pain killer. Because of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Ms C also complained that the board's handling of Mr A's complaint was inappropriate. In particular, Mr A said that after he submitted his complaint form, he was called to a meeting with the doctor. He said that when he arrived in the doctor's room, the nurse who he had raised concerns about was there and she was holding his complaint form. Mr A said he understood his form would go to the board's complaints and feedback team. We reviewed the relevant Scottish Government guidance, Can I help you?, which outlines how health service providers should deal with complaints. In particular, it says that if a complaint is reasonably straight forward and non-complex it may be managed without the requirement for a detailed investigation. In Mr A

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her stepfather (Mr A) during his admissions to Gartnavel General Hospital and the Western Infirmary, Glasgow. She was unhappy about the standard of nursing care and the medical treatment Mr A received. Mrs C said there were delays in admitting Mr A and, once admitted, he was not properly cared for and nursing staff did not take his disabilities into consideration. Mr A was discharged from his first admission with a diagnosis of cancer, which proved to be incorrect, and there was a substantial delay in providing the correct diagnosis. The family said that this diagnosis came too late, as Mr A passed away some weeks later. Another of the board's departments then contacted them, offering assistance with Mr A's proposed discharge home, which added to their distress. We took independent advice on this case from a nursing adviser and a medical adviser. We found the board had already acknowledged and apologised for a significant number of failings in Mr A's nursing care, and had provided evidence of what they had done to stop this happening again. Our nursing adviser said that Mr A's care was clearly substandard, but the board had demonstrated they had taken this seriously and had responded by taking proportionate and reasonable steps. Our medical adviser said that although Mr A's cancer diagnosis was not unreasonable, the delay in providing a conclusive diagnosis breached Scottish Government targets and that the board had not addressed this. We concluded that Mr A had experienced failings in nursing care, and in communication with the family, but that the board had taken reasonable steps to address these issues. They had not, however, identified that there was a failure to provide a follow-up appointment for Mr A following the cancer diagnosis.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that a properly accessible manhole cover was installed (in line with the approved drawings) at the development where he had bought a house. He also felt they had failed to confirm that the surface water drainage satisfied the approved plans and that his house's roof construction met the correct standards. Mr C had bought his house without a completion certificate being in place and he was unhappy at the steps the council had taken with the development. In considering Mr C's complaints, we took account of the extent of the council's role and obligations. The evidence they provided – including Scottish Government guidance on the building standards system - indicated that it was not their role to effectively supervise the development or to ensure compliance with plans or drawings. In addition, the fact that the manhole cover was missing years after the development was completed did not, by extension, mean it was never in place. Although we could not confirm from the paperwork whether the manhole cover was ever in place, the evidence showed that the council's role was clearly less than Mr C had expected. In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council said they were not required to test the development's surface water system. They also said that this would not be part of the final inspection following an application for a completion certificate (noting that there had been no such application for Mr C's property). Mr C had indicated that the drainage system had actually been working successfully and the evidence again pointed to the council's limited role. Although his concerns were clear, there was no evidence that the council had done anything wrong. Finally, the council told Mr C that enclosing the eaves of his roof was neither required under building regulations nor part of a final inspection. Rather, a roof would generally be visually inspected from ground level, with an intrusive inspection possibly fo

Mrs C applied for a crisis grant for a door entry system. The next day the council told her that her application had been declined, and Mrs C asked immediately for the decision to be reviewed. She told us that she did not hear from the council for over two weeks so she asked them what had happened to the review. The council told her that the review took place on the day she asked for it, and it was declined again. Mrs C did not believe that the council could make a decision and then review it within 24 hours. She also said that they did not explain to her why a door entry system could not be funded by a crisis grant. The council confirmed that the review was indeed dealt with within one working day, as they were up to date with these at that time. This was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found, however, that Scottish Government guidance says that the council should have explained why they refused the application. They admitted to us that they did not do this in Mrs C's case so we upheld that complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's role in relation to a housing development in which he had bought a house from a developer who was no longer trading, and with no completion certificate. Mr C complained that the council had not ensured that the access road met the approved plans or building regulations. He also questioned whether a fire engine would be able to access his house, and was unhappy that the council would not survey the road to check its width. We reviewed the evidence and could see that the relevant building regulations had required a minimum road width of 3.7 metres. In addition, the council had acknowledged to Mr C that the approved drawings specified a width of 4.0 metres. However, the council said the road's adequacy would have been considered when they granted completion certificates to the development's other properties. They said their surveyors would not have needed to measure its width and this was a matter of professional judgment. The council provided us with copies of Scottish Government guidance relating to the building standards system. We considered the guidance and it indicated that the council do not stand behind a developer's work, nor is it their role to ensure it is done to an owner's satisfaction. The evidence showed that the responsibility for compliance was not the council's and did not point to maladministration by them. Their role was not as extensive as Mr C might have wished it to have been and we did not uphold his complaint. In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council told him that the building regulations in place at the time did not require them to consult with the fire authority. Although Mr C felt best practice would have been for the council to have done so anyway, they provided evidence to show they had recently arranged for the fire service to attend the development. The fire service had confirmed they were comfortable with access in the event of an emergency and that they had no concerns. In light of

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

When the local planning authority refused Mr C's application for planning consent, he appealed the decision. He complained to us that in handling his appeal, the inquiry reporter (the person responsible for hearing the appeal) failed to confine his reporting to matters relevant to the status of the application (which was for planning consent in principle). Mr C also complained that the reporter used subjective opinions to make his decision. Our investigation found no evidence from the appeal, or the responses the department gave Mr C when he complained, that the reporter had failed to take relevant matters such as the legislation and development plan policy into consideration. Nor did we find evidence that the reporter was in any doubt that this was an appeal for planning consent in principle, not detailed consent. Finally, we found no evidence that the reporter used his own criteria. We found that the comments Mr C considered subjective were where the reporter expressed an opinion, which he was entitled to do as long as he was taking account of the relevant policy, legislation and guidance. This was a professional decision that the reporter had discretion to take and there was no evidence of fault in how he arrived at that decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201305342 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a solicitor, brought a complaint on behalf of his client (Mrs A) about the service she received after her GP referred her to a psychiatric department. Mrs A complained that the board failed to meet their targets and that her treatment did not meet any reasonable standard of care. She explained that she had requested referral to a psychologist. During our investigation, we took independent advice from a mental health adviser. The adviser said that the Scottish Government's referral-to-treatment waiting time target of 18 weeks did not apply to mental health services. However, Mrs A had received treatment from a community psychiatric nurse (CPN) 12 working days after they received the referral. She was also seen by a consultant psychiatrist ten weeks after the GP referral. Both these appointments fell within the target times. Mrs A was also offered further appointments with a CPN and a senior charge nurse trained in cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), but Mrs A declined these. The adviser said that there were delays in relation to the referral for a psychology assessment to be carried out and, thereafter, in re-referring Mrs A to the local CBT service. We found that both these periods of delays were unreasonable, but we were satisfied that lower intensity psychological therapy had been progressed from the outset and higher intensity therapy was not initiated because Mrs A declined an appointment with the senior charge nurse trained in CBT. The adviser was also satisfied that the care offered and delivered was reasonable. However, we were concerned that Mrs A had not signed the care plan that had been prepared, and which set out her presenting difficulties, the goals of the nursing care and the interventions planned, and that there was no evidence in the medical records that she had agreed the plan. We were satisfied that it was reasonable to refer Mrs A to a CPN in the first instance and that it had been explained to her that referral to a psychologist was

Mr C complained that he waited too long to see a prison dentist after a crown fell out. He said that he had twice asked to see the dentist and had explained that he was suffering some pain. In response to Mr C's complaint, the board said that they did not consider his dental problem to be an emergency and that his needs would be met by a routine appointment, for which he was placed on a waiting list. Mr C then complained to us as he was concerned the root would be beyond repair if he waited any longer for an appointment. Although he then received treatment, Mr C continued to pursue his complaint with us as he felt he had waited too long for treatment and did not want this to happen again. We took independent advice on this case from a dental adviser. Although Mr C had asked for an emergency appointment, our adviser considered that he had been appropriately categorised as needing routine dental care even though he had some pain. We found this to be in accordance with guidance to which the board referred when treating prisoners. However, we upheld his complaint as we found that it was four weeks before the crown was re-cemented. We considered this wait to be unreasonably long, and not in accordance with the seven day timescale set out in the guidance for treating routine patients. We also found that there was no documented information to show that Mr C was given advice about pain management while waiting for his appointment. We noted that the Scottish Government will shortly be publishing national guidance for a robust framework for oral health improvement and dental services in Scottish prisons, and made our recommendations in the light of this.

Mr C phoned the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team to ask about applying for a crisis grant. The call handler said that he was not eligible because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C then complained because he felt the call handler did not deal with his enquiries properly. In responding to the complaint, the council said they were sorry that Mr C was unhappy with the service, but confirmed that because he was not in receipt of an appropriate qualifying benefit, he was not eligible. In response to our enquiries, the council told us that they did not process a claim for Mr C because it was clear he did not meet the relevant criteria for a crisis grant. They also said that, since then, the Scottish Government had relaxed the eligibility criteria and if he was now to apply with similar circumstances, they might be able to consider his application. We checked the Scottish Government guidance that was in place when Mr C contacted the council. This confirmed that those applying for a crisis grant should normally be in receipt of certain benefits. However, the guidance also said that the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant was the severity of the applicant's circumstances and the likely impact on them and their family. It also said that if an applicant was not in receipt of qualifying benefits, the council could make an exception to the requirement for this if they were satisfied that the person had no other means of support, and an award would avoid serious damage or risk to the health or safety of them or their family. We found that in saying that Mr C was not eligible for a crisis grant the council effectively made a decision on his request. In addition, when the Scottish Government clarified the guidance, they did not relax the criteria. The guidance in place when Mr C contacted the council clearly said that the key test of eligibility was the need of the individual, not whether they were in receipt of a qualifying benefit, and that t

Mrs C wanted to buy her home under the right to buy legislation. She complained that her association were unreasonably refusing her request, and that they gave inconsistent reasons for their refusal. The association explained that when Mrs C left her previous tenancy she had entered into an assured tenancy, under which she had no right to buy. Her tenancy was then changed to a Scottish secure tenancy under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Under this kind of tenancy, she (technically) accrued a modernised right to buy after five years. However, the council had already suspended the right to buy in the area, and had then asked for a further suspension, which the Scottish Government granted. This meant that Mrs C would not be able to exercise the modernised right to buy until 2022. We considered all the information provided by Mrs C and the association. We also reviewed the law which determines the right to buy, and the relevant government guidance. Having done so, we were satisfied that the association had complied with their responsibilities in terms of Mrs C's right to buy. We also noted that, throughout this process, the association had given her clear and consistent explanations about why her application was refused. Related reading View Decision Report 201306028 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council acted unreasonably in granting temporary planning permission for a mast to be erected on the Isle of Orsay (an uninhabited island). The mast was intended to collect meteorological information essential for the development of an offshore wind farm near Islay. The wind farm had been designated a project of national importance by the Scottish Government, and the planning application for it was to be considered by the government, rather than the council. Mrs C said that the council had not taken account of Orsay's special protected area (SPA) status under European law, and they had not given sufficient weight to objectors' requests for an environmental impact assessment. Mrs C also felt the council's decision was inconsistent with a previous planning decision on a proposal to site the mast nearby. She said that the council's actions contravened the Aarhus Convention (a European convention establishing a number of rights of the public with regard to the environment) in relation to public participation and environmental information. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who said that the mast could not be considered to have the same impact as a wind turbine because of the difference in size, and that the temporary nature of the permission was an important consideration. Orsay's SPA designation had been addressed in Scottish National Heritage (SNH)'s response to the council's planning consultation and the council acted reasonably in relying on this in their decision. He also said that the council were entitled to decide how much weight to give to information from objectors. They had to bear in mind that a decision giving too much weight to objections from members of the public, as opposed to advice received from SNH as a specialist body, would have been open to challenge. The adviser said the application for the alternative site was withdrawn before the council could consider it, so no precedent was set, and in thei

Mrs C applied to the council for assistance through a community care grant. This is available to help people on a low income live independently in the community and is paid out of the Scottish Welfare Fund, which is a national scheme delivered by local authorities. Mrs C applied to the scheme mainly for help with purchasing household items, including carpets and curtains. The council decided not to award Mrs C assistance for carpets and curtains because they said her circumstances did not match the situation with which community care grants were set up to help. They said she purchased the items herself before the decision on her application was made, and pointed out that they normally awarded items in goods, not cash. Mrs C complained about the way the council handled her application. She said she was not told that, if her application was successful, the award for carpets and curtains would be in goods. She also said the council failed to appropriately respond to her complaint. We listened to a copy of the recording of Mrs C's phone call in which she applied for assistance. This confirmed that she was not told that if her application was successful the council would provide the relevant items. We noted that both the council's decision makers guide and Scottish Government guidance confirm that the council are entitled to decide whether to make such awards in goods or cash. However, the council should have clearly explained this to Mrs C at the start. Also, after listening to the call, we found that the call handler was often vague when trying to explain what the council needed from Mrs C to progress her application, and their position often conflicted with the information in the Scottish Government guidance. We also found that the call handler commented inappropriately about other benefits that Mrs C received. In light of this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council's handling of her application was poor. In addition, when responding to Mrs C's comp

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

Mr C represented a number of people at a planning appeal hearing after the council issued a planning enforcement notice about advertising hoardings that they said had been erected without permission. He said that as part of that hearing, the council deliberately misled the Scottish Government's Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals with regard to the number of enforcement notices served, and also about their own policy on the sponsorship of roundabouts. He thought that this incorrect information may well have prejudiced the outcome for his clients. During our investigation, we obtained independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers. The investigation found that while internal email exchanges were confusing and conflicting about the number of enforcement notices served, there was no evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead, as Mr C had suggested. We accepted that the emails concerned represented council officers' reflections in the aftermath of the planning hearing but before a decision had been given. They were not intended to contradict the council's formal position but were made in anticipation of a possible finding against the council and what might then have to be addressed. Although we did not make any formal recommendations, we did point out to the council that this presented a confusing picture and that their policy should be clear to the public. Related reading View Decision Report 201301084 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C and Mr D appealed to Scottish Ministers because the council had not determined their application for the removal of a planning condition on a property within the time set out for this. When the inquiry reporter did not grant consent for their application, Mr C and Mr D complained to us that the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) had not acted reasonably in determining their appeal. We took independent advice on this from one of our planning advisers, who said that there were procedural errors in the reporter's decision letter. These included not addressing under what section of the relevant legislation she was considering the appeal, and not warning Mr C and Mr D about an issue that had the potential to determine the case, but which had not been addressed before. The DPEA had accepted these failings when Mr C and Mr D complained to them. They had apologised, discussed the failings with the reporter concerned and also addressed these at a professional seminar with other reporters. On balance, we upheld the complaint but in view of the action the DPEA had already taken, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201302839 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018