SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C's daughter attends a school within the authority of the council. She was experiencing bullying at school, which was having a serious emotional impact upon her. Mr C was concerned that this was affecting his daughter's health and progress at school. He complained that the school did not operate an anti-bullying policy, that it had failed to investigate his complaints about bullying appropriately, and that the council had not followed its complaints procedure when investigating his complaints. We upheld the complaints in relation to the anti-bullying policy. The school had followed a council-wide policy prior to June 2011, but had not implemented a stand alone policy as recommended within the council-wide policy. We found that until then the school had not in fact had a clear policy about how reports of bullying would be dealt with, or what outcomes and resolutions were to be aimed for. As, however, the school had demonstrated they had introduced an anti-bullying policy in June 2011, we recommended that the council provide evidence that this policy had been implemented and promoted to all pupils and staff at the school. We did not uphold the complaint in relation to the investigations of bullying. We found that overall the school had taken appropriate steps to investigate incidents, that there had been an appropriate level of enquiry into allegations about other pupils, and also in relation to allegations of harassment by some of the teachers at the school. We did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to follow its complaints procedure. We found that, although Mr C did not receive a response within the stated timescale at Stage 2 of the procedure, the reason for this was acceptable, as a thorough investigation was being conducted which included the interviewing of all parties involved, and given the complex issues raised which dated back over more than a year. We also found Mr C received responses from appropriate people in the council at both Stages 2

Mr C complained that the council failed to take appropriate action to deal with vandalism at a cemetery. Mr C was not an adjoining neighbour of the cemetery and had not specifically stated that he was a lair holder or had loved ones buried there. We, therefore, considered his complaint on the basis that he was an interested member of the public who was concerned that the cemetery should not deteriorate further. In the absence of a specific claim of injustice, or that Mr C suffered particular hardship, we considered only whether the council properly considered the points he raised with them and provided appropriate responses, particularly where they decided that they were unable to take the corrective action Mr C specified. When we investigated, we found that the council had responded appropriately to the points Mr C made. The fact that he did not agree with these responses or the level of corrective action taken did not give us grounds to question the council further on these matters. The council have discretion to decide how to spend their resources and we cannot question this in the absence of any administrative or service failure on their part. Related reading View Decision Report 201101260 as a PDF (16.67 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C’s property sits below a property that is leased to the council. She complained that the council failed to take appropriate action when they found out that a pipe had burst in the property above hers and that they failed to properly investigate her complaint. She also complained that the council failed to maintain the property when it was empty and left it without heating in extreme weather conditions. Our investigation found that, although the council had taken appropriate action to look after the property while it was empty, including taking action to deal with the burst pipe, they had failed to make any contact with Ms C and had provided her with inaccurate information about the action they had taken.

Mrs C had a hip replacement and, as part of her recuperation, had to walk using crutches. She said that because the footpath near her home was full of holes and rubble, she was in danger of falling and she had to walk on the road which she considered to be a risk to her safety and welfare. Following a complaint made by Mrs C, the council repaired the area immediately in front of her property but she said the footpath on either side was still in a poor state of repair. We found the last safety report carried out noted 'no defects found' during the inspection and the council said that the next inspection would be carried out shortly as per the stated frequency for safety inspections of six months. Following Mrs C's complaint to the council, a further 'ad hoc' inspection was carried out and as a result, minor repairs were instructed to the footpath. In addition to safety inspections, the council carries out further inspections on an 'ad hoc' basis. This allows the council to build up a picture of the condition of all roads and footways within their area. Several factors are taken into account and this allows the council to apply a scoring system to objectively prioritise resources when programming major resurfacing works. They told us that, to date, it had not been possible to include the footpath near Mrs C's home in any major resurfacing works as it had not scored highly enough against numerous other competing schemes. As the council had complied with their legal obligations under the Roads (Scotland) Act and acted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management and their own Safety Inspection Procedures and Guidance Manual, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201005253 as a PDF (14.52 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C has health problems and he found his contact with the council difficult. He complained that when the council pursued him for council tax arrears, they failed to take into account in the payment plan offered to him that he was on council tax benefit. He complained also that the council did not properly investigate his complaint about the handling of his council tax account and the attitude of staff. Mr C told us that it would solve his complaint if agreement could be reached with the council on a payment plan which was reasonable, because it took account of his circumstances, and if they looked into the handling of the matter. The council offered to find a way of resolving the complaint by meeting with the complainant, or some other form of communication if this was more acceptable to him. Mr C agreed to this suggestion and we closed our file on the basis that a resolution was being pursued by the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201100605 as a PDF (13.79 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In error, Mrs A paid the amount of a council parking fine twice. She contacted the council to request a refund, but this was not paid until over three weeks later. As Mrs A did not have the amount of twice the fine in her bank account, the account was overdrawn, which attracted charges, and she struggled to meet her basic expenses. Mrs C complained that the time taken to refund the overpayment was unreasonable. The council advised that the time taken to refund the overpayment was due to payments to them not being collected immediately and the process for making such a refund needing to be carefully verified and authorised. Mrs C was dissatisfied and raised her complaints with the SPSO. We decided that the council's explanation had been reasonable in the circumstances and could see no evidence of the maladministration or service failure alleged. Related reading View Decision Report 201004316 as a PDF (13.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The council considered an 'in principle' application to build a house on land in a former coal mining area and approved it, subject to conditions. Mr C, whose property borders the application site, was concerned that reports about the ground stability of the site were not available on the council's planning portal prior to the decision being made and said that the council's actions have not and will not adequately assess this. A detailed application for the development was considered and approved while we were investigating these complaints. We sought the opinion of our planning adviser and he told us that while mineral stability is a material planning consideration, there is no clear guidance on how it should be considered or whether it requires to be considered in relation to 'in principle' applications. We did not uphold the complaints because there was no evidence that the council were required to make the reports available on the planning portal and we considered that the council's consideration of the ground stability issues had been adequate for an 'in principle' application. Related reading View Decision Report 201004241 as a PDF (13.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a Council joiner refused to leave his home when attending with a gas engineer and housing officer. This was following a visit by the Council to force entry, if necessary, to carry out a gas inspection. Mr C alleged that the gas engineer was not qualified and placed the incorrect type of warning sticker on the boiler. He also complained that the Council failed to deal with his complaint effectively, and in line with their procedures. We did not find sufficient evidence to show that the joiner had refused to leave Mr C's house and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. We also did not uphold his concerns about the gas engineer as the Council's external auditors were satisfied with the action taken. We did, however, uphold his complaint that the Council failed to respond to his complaint in line with their procedures. We found that the Council did not comply with their timescales when responding to the complaint. As they had already apologised for this earlier in the process, however, we made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201004494 as a PDF (13.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr A suffers from a degenerative muscular disease. His sister, Ms C, complained on his behalf. She explained that Mr A lived alone in a ground floor flat and moved about with the use of a wheeled zimmer. She told us that, as the council had failed to resolve access problems to his home, Mr A was virtually housebound. We noted that the council had agreed that the ramp to Mr A's home was too steep for use with his zimmer. Their architect, after inspection, had said that the safest and most appropriate method of access would be to install a step lift. Ms C and her brother did not find this solution acceptable. As, however, our investigation found that the council offered this after considering all the facts and after discussion with their professional officers, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. (It was Mr A's decision not to accept the council's offer of a step lift. He was free to make this choice even though it appears that installing a lift would resolve his access problems.) We did, however, uphold Ms C's other complaints. After investigation, we agreed that they had failed to carry out adaptation work to allow Mr A access to his front and rear gardens. They had also failed to discuss the close entry system with him prior to installation, and had failed to fit an entry system to his front door. All this meant that Mr A was, indeed, virtually house bound. Finally, there had been confusion over the number of housing application points to which Mr A was entitled. This was clarified as part of our investigation.

Ms C complained about the council’s decision to agree to three retrospective planning applications by her neighbour. She said that in deciding the application the council did not take her circumstances into account and failed to take account of their own policies and procedures. Ms C was concerned that the council did not consider the applications together for their cumulative effect which she felt showed that her neighbour’s property was being developed as a business. She said that concerns about the effect of contaminated water and drainage were not dealt with. Ms C also felt that reports put to the council committee were flawed. After the council granted the applications Ms C was also unhappy that she received no updates about monitoring of the site. To assist us, we obtained advice from one of our professional planning advisers. On the basis of the advice received we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We concluded that the council appropriately determined each application on its merits. We noted that when considering the third application they did refer to the previous two and that the drainage policy referred to was more a matter for building control rather than the planning process. We found that the access issues had been considered and that an error relating to Network Rail’s view of the proposals was not critical. The council also granted the applications provided the developer meets certain conditions. This is to ensure that the property remains in private use and is not used for business. The council said they would monitor the site. They confirmed to us that there has been no evidence of unauthorised activity noted nor have they received allegations of any breach of consent since the application was granted. Ms C had not asked them to keep her up to date with these activities and so we did not uphold the complaint that they should have done so. Related reading View Decision Report 201002777 as a PDF (16.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that she was unfairly prevented from purchasing a lair in a cemetery where deceased relatives were buried, and that this caused her considerable distress. While we recognised that Mrs C was clearly upset about the council’s decision, we explained that our role is to check that proper procedures and policies are in place and that these are being followed properly by public services. If we find that that a council followed the proper procedure and policies when making their decision we cannot take the complaint further. On investigating this complaint, we asked the council to send us copies of the relevant policies and procedures. We were referred to their 'Operating procedures and conditions on interments and cemeteries', which came into force in 2001. This confirms that the council have the discretion to allow or refuse the purchase of lairs. In response to Mrs C’s initial complaint, the council’s chief executive wrote to explain that at the time of her request restrictions to the pre-purchasing of lairs were in place.  They said that a decision was taken in 2009, based on the Operating Procedures, not to sell burial rights without a burial taking place, to ensure sustainability of the cemetery. The council apologised to Mrs C for the delays in responding to her complaint and that the information on their website had not been updated. The council said that they would make the information publicly available and that a letter would be circulated to funeral directors and the clergy in the event of restrictions being placed on the advance sale of lairs in other cemeteries. Related reading View Decision Report 201003444 as a PDF (14.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C asked the council to provide a larger household waste bin for his property. The council told him that their policy is to provide a single household waste bin to households with up to four family members, to be emptied fortnightly. They offered to work with him to identify an appropriate solution, and suggested that he carry out a waste monitoring exercise to assist with this. Mr C was unhappy with this, as he had previously carried out a similar exercise and felt that his family circumstances meant that a larger bin was the solution. He complained to us that the council’s response was unreasonable because they suggested that he participate in a second waste monitoring exercise and because he felt the council’s procedure for collecting excess waste was unreasonably time consuming and illogical. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. In responding to his request for a larger bin, the council explained their policy and offered assistance to explore potential alternative solutions to the problems Mr C was facing. Mr C decided to reject that offer and we found that the council’s responses in respect of his complaint were reasonable. In terms of the council’s procedure for collecting excess waste, Mr C simply disagrees with the council’s decision. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that policies about the frequency of waste collection and the size and type of waste receptacles that the council will collect are for the council to decide. The SPSO Act says that where an organisation has the right to take a decision we cannot consider a complaint about the decision unless there is evidence that something went wrong in taking it. In Mr C’s case, there was no evidence that the council’s decision was not properly taken. Mr C clearly disagrees with the procedure for collecting excess waste but this was not in itself evidence of maladministration or service failure. We therefore could not consider that complaint further. Related reading View Decision Report 201100008 a