SPSO Individual Decisions

Miss C is a council tenant. She complained that the council failed to acknowledge that there was a noise nuisance from her nextdoor neighbour’s house and to take reasonable steps to resolve the matter. Our investigation found evidence that the council had investigated Miss C’s complaint. Visits had been carried out and no nuisance was identified. The view taken was that any noise came from normal household activities. It was clear that the council had not found a problem and this was why no further action had been taken. We did not, therefore, uphold the complaint but because it had been almost a year since the last visit by the council, and Miss C told us that she was continuing to experience a problem, we decided that it was reasonable to make a recommendation about this.

Ms C complained to the council that her child's school did not follow procedures for dealing with bullying and did not respond to parents' concerns about her child being bullied. She said that the council did not ensure that anti-bullying policies and procedures were in place and being followed by the school. The council had not upheld her complaints about this and she also considered that the council had not responded to, or adequately investigated, these. We upheld all Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had a comprehensive and detailed policy but had not ensured that the school were following this, as the school did not have their own policy as the council required. There was also little evidence of logging bullying incidents as required and, when the school revisited their decision about adopting a school policy, attempts to engage parents were not effective. We also found that, in handling the complaint, the council did not refer to the complaints handling procedure and its stages and did not record or communicate the outcomes of a meeting held with Ms C to investigate and resolve the complaint.

Mr C owns a house which is reached by a lane. The properties on the lane were built before the present council came into existence in 1996. At that time, in readiness for the reorganisation of local government, the former roads authority had sent the council a computer list of public roads, on which the lane was identified as one. Mr C did not know about this when he bought his property in 1997, and does not have a property enquiry certificate (a document produced by a council with information about the status of a property) from the time of his purchase. In 1998 a neighbour (neighbour D) bought a property there. His property enquiry certificate suggested that the lane was a public road, as did a plan he was later sent. In 2011, however, Mr C found out that the council considered that the lane was not a public road, and was unhappy about this. In response to the complaint, the council said that, by 2004, they had realised that the property enquiry certificate issued to neighbour D was wrong, and had told him and apologised. (This meant that the council considered that the lane was in fact private and that the home-owners had the responsibility of maintaining it.) There was, however, a scheme under which owners could apply to pay half the cost (with the council paying the other half) of bringing a road up to the standard where the council would adopt it (take responsibility for it). This had been raised with the council before, but nothing had come of it. In 2011, Mr C made another enquiry about this, and was given costs but then learned that the council had no money for this in their budget. When Mr C was speaking to other residents about the project, neighbour D had provided a copy of his original 1998 property enquiry certificate. After seeing this, and knowing that the council had been maintaining the road verges etc, Mr C was unhappy with the council’'s insistence that the lane was private. He pursued this with the council, through solicitors and through a counc

Ms C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of a repair under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Ms C questioned whether the original repair to the roof had ever been done and, even if it had, the standard of the workmanship. This was because no one remembered the work having been done; the chronology of the notices and repair did not correspond; and another repair was required soon after. The council acknowledged administrative errors in their handling of the repair, but maintained that the work was carried out in 2010. They also felt that the time that had since passed made it impossible to confirm whether the latest repair was related in any way to the 2010 repair. The fact that the work was carried out under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 meant that we could not look at the first two aspects of Ms C’s complaint, as these were outwith our jurisdiction. However, we investigated the third aspect, about how they handled Ms C's complaint. The council acknowledged to us that they had not met their own timescales in doing so. They explained that they had reviewed their processes and had given feedback to the relevant members of staff. They had also recently adopted the model council complaints handling procedure recommended by our Complaints Standards Authority. However, we also found evidence that a council employee had told Ms C that the council would conduct the later repair at its own expense. This contradicted the council’s final response which said that they would only pay their individual share (as a part-owner of the building), so we asked the council for more information about this. In the light of the evidence received, we found there had been maladministration. We upheld this aspect of Ms C’s complaint and made a relevant recommendation.

Ms C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained about the council on behalf of her constituent (Mr A). Mr A had originally approached the council to seek permission to operate a car cleaning business from a council car park. The council refused this on the basis that there was a general presumption against the carrying out of businesses in their car parks. Following this, Ms C contacted the council on behalf of Mr A and after some communication, the council offered him the opportunity to operate his business on a two month trial basis, subject to the approval of a business plan. A significant period of time passed before Mr A's business plan reached the council. By then, they had introduced a parking order prohibiting the cleaning or washing of vehicles in any council car park, and on that basis the application was refused. Ms C complained to us that the council failed to appropriately consider Mr A's application to operate a car cleaning business; unreasonably delayed in responding to his concerns; inappropriately failed to tell her about an order being considered by committee in relation to the setting up of businesses in council car parks; and that the order unfairly allowed some businesses to operate but not Mr A's. After investigating these complaints, we did not uphold them. We were satisfied the council properly considered Mr A's proposal before the introduction of the order and had explained their position clearly. Although Mr A felt the submission of a business plan was unnecessary, the council were entitled to ask for this before deciding whether to allow him to operate his business. In addition, the evidence available confirmed that the council responded to concerns raised by Mr A, and others on his behalf, within a reasonable time. The process for notifying people about orders being considered by committee was to advertise in local newspapers, with information also available on the council's website. The parking order was advertise

Mr and Mrs C’s twin children attended a local primary school but were placed in separate classes. Mr and Mrs C considered that one of their children had been subjected to bullying by classmates over an extended period since late 2011. Unhappy about the way the head teacher of the school had handled the matter, they asked the council’s education service to intervene, and in early 2012 a council quality improvement officer chaired a meeting in the school. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs C reported various other incidents in the summer term and, dissatisfied with the education service’s handling of the matter, they complained to the service. Mr and Mrs C made six complaints to us. We did not uphold two of these: that the education service unreasonably failed to follow disciplinary procedures to prevent the bullying of their child or that the education service unreasonably failed to implement agreed support measures to assist their child. We upheld the remaining four complaints, one of which was that the school unreasonably failed to return a phone call when Mr and Mrs C had taken the step of withdrawing their child from school. The other three complaints related to complaints handling and the sharing of information about the education service’s investigation and notes of two meetings Mr and Mrs C attended with officers during the investigation process.

Mr C attended a community consultation session about a town centre regeneration plan. He later complained that a council officer did not include his comments in a summary document. Mr C also questioned the motives behind the officer's decision not to include his comments. After complaining to the council, he approached us with his concerns about the length of time they took to respond to his complaint, the fact that they referred to his role as a newly elected member of the council and because in their final response they did not give him details of his right to bring his complaint to us. The council had explained to Mr C that the officer felt that the comments did not contribute to the consultation, either in a positive or negative way, and that this was why they were not included. Mr C pointed out that the council had included other comments which could also not be considered to contribute in any way to the exercise. Our investigation reviewed the supporting documentation, and found no evidence to suggest that the council's decision not to include the comments was unreasonable. However, we did agree with Mr C that other comments which were included in the summary document could not be said to have contributed to the consultation and we noted that this could lead to a perception of bias. However, Mr C did not suffer any injustice in terms of having his views heard as his comments, in full, were presented to the planning committee, and he had further opportunities to comment before the planning application was considered. We did not, therefore, uphold this aspect of the complaint. We did uphold his complaint about the time the council took to respond to his complaint, and their failure to provide referral rights to us. We noted, however, that the council were correct to point out that a change of status to councillor would change the relationship with the council and its officers, and would have an impact on how they examine a complaint such as this.

Mr C complained that the council had unfairly prevented him from seeing his child during the school lunch hour and that their response to his complaint was confused and contradictory. Mr C said that this was particularly unfair as at the time this was his only opportunity to see his children as his estranged wife would not abide by the contact arrangements ordered by the court. Mr C also complained that the council’s response to his complaint contained a number of errors and that he had not been properly involved in the investigation of his complaint. He felt that this showed a lack of care by the council and that his complaint had not been properly investigated. We carefully considered all the information provided, including the council’s policies about parental involvement in their children’s education when parents have separated. Our investigation found that the council did not have a clear policy covering requests by parents to visit their children during the school day in these circumstances. As a result, council and school staff had given Mr C confusing and contradictory advice. Although there were typographical errors in the council’s response letter, these were relatively minor and did not affect the conclusion reached. We found the council’s response inadequate, as it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the contradictory advice that Mr C had received. The council had already explained to us that they intended to change their complaints policy after reflecting on this investigation. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address this.

Mr C complained on behalf of the residents of his street about noise disturbance from a nearby construction site. A supermarket was being built, and Mr C's complaints centred around early morning and/or late night working and deliveries; failure to enforce adherence to planning conditions; failure to monitor and/or enforce action on breaches of conditions; failure to address his complaints; and communication issues. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from our planning adviser, concluded that there had been some communication issues and failures in complaints handling. However, on the majority of complaints we found that the council had taken reasonable and proportionate action to monitor the site. When Mr C first complained about early/late working, the council investigated and then issued a notice to restrict the times of certain types of work and/or deliveries to the site. While there were some breaches of these conditions, we found that the monitoring action taken by the council, which included unannounced site visits, was reasonable and proportionate. We upheld two of Mr C's nine complaints, about shortcomings in correspondence and about a council official's meeting with the residents.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably denied him access to their library service. The council had excluded Mr C from their libraries for a year because he had breached their computer use policy by accessing inappropriate websites and because of his attitude towards some members of staff. However, because Mr C had stated that he would not be returning to the library, the council excluded him informally, rather than formally under the relevant legislation. The council then reviewed this at the end of the year and extended the exclusion by another year. After a further year, they reviewed it again and decided that he could have conditional access to a library for an interim period. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 says we cannot question a decision that a council was entitled to make (a discretionary decision) where there is no evidence of maladministration (of anything being wrong in the taking of that decision). We can, however, consider whether the council followed the relevant policy or policies. In Mr C's case, the council did not have a policy on informal exclusion from their services, so there was no policy to compare their actions against. We did, however, consider whether they should have formally excluded Mr C from the library under the relevant legislation. We were, however, satisfied that the council were entitled to decide to exclude him from the library and, in view of the fact that Mr C said that he would not be returning to the library anyway, it was reasonable for them to do this on an informal basis. That said, we found that the council had delayed in reviewing their decision at the end of each year. We found that they should have been more proactive in making these reviews and that their delays could potentially have delayed Mr C's return to the library. We also found that one of their letters should have offered Mr C the opportunity to make representations against their decision to extend the exclusion. Although we

Miss C, who lived with her partner, complained when she unexpectedly received a retrospective bill for council tax when the council removed a single occupancy discount from the account. Miss C said the council should not have applied a single occupancy discount when her partner had not applied for it. She said the council should have known that he was no longer a single occupant because he was a council tenant and they had attended the council's housing office together to enter into a joint tenancy. Miss C complained because she said that when they went to the council an officer had told them that they did not have to do anything more, and that their rent and council tax payments would stay the same. Miss C also complained that she had been caused a great deal of frustration by the council's poor handling of her initial enquiry and complaint. The council said they could not be sure what advice was given to Miss C and her partner when they went to the council office to sign the new tenancy agreement. They said there was no agreement in place to exchange information between the housing team and the revenues team administering council tax. They said that they would consider whether such an agreement would be useful in future. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council sent revised council tax notices after the joint tenancy had been entered into, as well as a new council tax notice at the start of each new financial year. These clearly indicated that a discount had been applied on the basis of sole occupancy. This was clearly incorrect and Miss C and her partner should have brought this to the attention of the council. We did, however, find shortcomings in the council's handling of Miss C's initial enquiries and complaint. Officers had not taken ownership of the issues, and unreasonably referred Miss C back to the council's contact centre when it was clear she was dissatisfied and had a complaint. The contact centre had no

After an incident involving Mrs C and her teenage daughter, Mrs C and her husband (Mr C) complained to the council about the way that social work services handled matters stemming from the incident. In response to the complaint, the council held a complaints review committee (CRC). Amongst other things, the CRC partly upheld the complaint that the council had not shared all documents with Mr and Mrs C. They recommended that the council's head of children's services and resources should meet with Mr and Mrs C to identify the documents said to be missing and to provide them if appropriate. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that their case was unreasonably progressed to the CRC before the council had provided Mr and Mrs C with all the documents they should have had. They also told us that they still disputed that they had now received all the documents. To investigate this, we obtained all the complaints correspondence and the CRC documentation and made further enquiries of the council. We upheld the complaint as the council did not dispute that they failed to give all the relevant documentation to Mr and Mrs C before the CRC. However, although the council have since provided all the information available, Mr and Mrs C remain adamant that information is still outstanding. We checked the records for the documents they felt were missing, but could not find them. The council said that the documents did not exist, explaining that specific meetings that Mr and Mrs C said took place under the chairmanship of named individuals had not in fact happened. We noted that there were no records of such meetings, but took the view that the council's explanation was reasonable and that it would be disproportionate to pursue this further. Recommendation We recommended that the council: apologise for their acknowledged failure to provide relevant documentation in advance of the CRC. Related reading View Decision Report 201003985 as a PDF (11.53 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a councillor made inaccurate statements at a planning committee hearing, which caused the committee to reject Mr C's application. He also complained that when he raised his concerns with the council they failed to carry out a reasonable or prompt investigation into his complaint. As Mr C appealed the decision to reject the application, and was successful, and as he had the ability to make a claim for fees at his appeal, we explained that we could not look at the councillor's comments. We examined the council's investigation into his complaint and established that it was reasonable. However, as it took substantially longer to conclude than it should have done, and as the council failed to keep Mr C updated on progress, we upheld his complaint about the investigation, although we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201202581 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way in which Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) handled the tendering arrangements for a passenger ferry service. Mr C complained that SPT failed to consult appropriately before deciding to award a new contract, issued a misleading statement in their minute of a meeting, and failed to handle Mr C's complaints appropriately. Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold Mr C’s complaints. We found that Mr C had not identified any specific duty on SPT to consult, and there appeared to be no obligation for them to do so before the tendering exercise, although they had surveyed passenger numbers and usages of services. Mr C had told us that he was also aware that in answer to an information request, SPT had said that there had been no consultation. He said that this contradicted a minuted statement by a councillor at SPT's March 2012 operations committee meeting. However, we found that the statement was not in fact made by a member of the committee but by a councillor of a local authority that the ferry served, who had been invited to address the committee. Finally, on the complaints handling matter, we found that in pursuing his complaint Mr C had asked for a prompt response. The chief executive had, therefore, intervened - he had provided a prompt response, thus cutting short the published complaints procedure. The reply was informative, and although it was not to Mr C’s satisfaction, we did not find it inappropriate and it did not disadvantage him. Related reading View Decision Report 201201777 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council had written, without her permission, to her GP about a council tax exemption, which had been granted many years previously on the basis of her mental health disorder. Having obtained the opinion of Ms C's GP the council then removed the exemption, generating a large council tax bill. Ms C said that this was unreasonable given that the council knew she was unwell. The council requested repeat information and forms from Ms C before agreeing to reinstate the exemption. Our investigation found that, although distressing for Ms C, the actions of the council had not been unreasonable. A query over Ms C's entitlement to an exemption had arisen and the council had a right to investigate. Once they were satisfied that Ms C did qualify for the exemption, having reasonably requested further evidence from a different clinician, it was reinstated. Related reading View Decision Report 201202602 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is a planning consultant, submitted a complaint on behalf of her client (Mrs A). In 2008, Mrs A had obtained planning consent for an extension to her cottage, but did not take this forward. In May 2010, she placed a large residential caravan with wooden decking beside the cottage. The caravan was connected to Mrs A's electricity, water and sewerage facilities and Mrs A’s mother moved into it. A neighbour objected to this, and a council enforcement officer investigated. They invited Mrs A to apply for retrospective planning consent for the caravan. When she did so, however, the committee who considered her application refused permission, and the council served an enforcement notice for the caravan to be removed. Mrs A appealed this to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The appeal was unsuccessful but after Mrs A succeeded in challenging this at the Court of Session, DPEA again considered the matter. However, they again dismissed the appeals, giving Mrs A six months to comply with the enforcement notice. Ms C made four complaints to us. She said the council had been unreasonable in refusing her offer to meet with them and engage in pre-application discussions, or to address her concerns about the relevance of a certificate of lawfulness of a proposed use or development. Ms C was also unhappy that the council delayed in handling her complaints. We upheld only one of her complaints, however, about complaints handling. This was because we found that the council in general acted appropriately in the action they took, and were entitled to make the decisions they had made.

Mr C complained that, following a storm, a neighbour's tree fell across the garden ground of a number of residents. One of the residents was a council tenant and, as a result, the council offered to arrange for contractors to remove the tree and large tree stump. However, a number of residents refused to contribute towards the costs of removal, so the council arranged for the tree to be cut into sections and for the sections which lay in their tenant's garden to be removed. While the tree was being cut up, its root ball fell back into the hole that was made when the tree fell, with the roots protruding into Mr C's garden. Mr C was unhappy that the council allowed this to happen, and felt that the root should have remained where it was. Our investigation found that this was, essentially, a private legal matter between residents, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had acted appropriately in attempting to co-ordinate the removal of the tree and its stump and, when some residents refused to contribute, appropriately arranged to remove the parts relating to their own tenant's property. Related reading View Decision Report 201203175 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about changes to the lighting in the close that he shares with his neighbour. He said that, historically, lighting was provided from dusk to dawn, but that this service was withdrawn in November 2011. Our investigation found that the council were not obliged to provide lighting in the close. The original light was connected to Mr C's neighbour's electricity supply and, although there was an understanding that the light would be left on overnight, this was ultimately at her discretion. When a new tenant moved into that property she decided not to use the light. Although the council were not required to light the close, we found that they had provided Mr C with a second light, over which he had sole control. We were satisfied that this was an appropriate gesture and that they had suggested other steps that he could take to increase the level of lighting available. Related reading View Decision Report 201200538 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to assist her in finding safe accommodation when she informed them that she was being stalked and harassed by a local man. When Ms C then moved to two different properties through a mutual exchange programme, she raised a further complaint that the council did not properly consider another request to be re-housed due to noisy neighbours and persistent youth disorder outside her home. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that there was insufficient information reported to the council about Ms C's alleged stalker for them to act. The evidence showed that the only records that the council had about this were noted in Ms C's housing application and that they had contacted the local police about these concerns. However, the police had told the council that they had no record of Ms C having reported being stalked. There was also little evidence of Ms C reporting persistent noise by local youths or her neighbours to the council. Therefore, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably in not awarding Ms C priority housing. Related reading View Decision Report 201101706 as a PDF (13.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had applied to be re-housed. His application was also assessed for priority housing as he said he was being harassed in his current home. Mr C complained that there was a delay in processing his application, and was unhappy with a council visit to his home. He felt that the visiting council officer had been unprepared and he had concerns about the questions asked and the advice given. In addition, he was dissatisfied with the decision reached on his application for priority and the way he was advised of the decision. He was also unhappy that a council officer had contacted another department after he had been asked not to do so. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. During our investigation we found that, while there was delay in processing a request for information about the allegation of harassment, there had been no delay in processing his application for housing. Mr C's name was added to the council's housing list in line with their target timescales. The evidence we saw also showed that after the council received all the information, including information from the police, they told Mr C their decision on his priority within their target timescales. While there was no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the council's handling of the issues raised, they had apologised for the distress and unsatisfactory service Mr C felt he had received, and for any confusion or misleading information received from officers with regard to his priority. The council had also apologised for the delay in processing the request for information and explained to us the action they had taken as a result of Mr C's case. Related reading View Decision Report 201102765 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a council employee, is also a council tenant living in a property that was 'tied' to his employment. He complained that the process followed by the council, prior to increasing the rent on what were formerly tied properties, did not comply with their responsibilities in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (the Act). In addition, he complained that the council failed to obtain written agreement, between landlord and tenant, before varying the terms of the tenancy, again, in breach of the Act. When we examined the complaints it because clear that both parties had different interpretations of the Act and that to reach a clear view, a decision would need to be made on which interpretation was correct. As this can only be determined by the courts, we were unable to uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201200710 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

After moving into a council property, Mr A told the council that water was coming in at the front door and there was mould growing in the bathroom. The council arranged to paint the bathroom but the mould problems continued, and the front door leak was not repaired. Mr A submitted a formal complaint and also raised concerns about draughts and condensation in the bedrooms. He said that this had forced him to sleep in the lounge area and that the problems with dampness, mould and drafts had had an adverse impact on his health. Mr A was re-housed within two days of submitting his complaint to the council and, in formally responding to the complaint, they acknowledged that they had not followed their normal process in dealing with the repairs. They apologised for the inconvenience, undertook to speak to staff to avoid similar future problems, and compensated Mr A for damaged possessions and mail items. Mr A was not satisfied with this and requested that his rent payments be refunded. The council did not consider this appropriate as, in their view, Mr A had also contributed to the problem by failing to adequately heat and ventilate the property. Miss C, an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of Mr A that the council had failed to reasonably address the problems with the property and failed to acknowledged that the problems were there before Mr A's tenancy started. To support this, she provided a letter from a previous tenant who said that he had also told the council about problems of water coming in and mould growth. Our enquiries revealed that required repair work, identified before the departure of the previous tenant, was not carried out before Mr A started his tenancy. We also found that the council should have carried out an inspection between tenancies, but this was not done. We noted that the council had then been slow to respond to repair requests by Mr A and that the required repair to the front door was not carried out at all during his tenancy

Mr C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained to us on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) about the council's handling of her tenancy of a council property. Ms A had accepted and signed the tenancy agreement but handed the keys back the next day with a signed notice of termination of tenancy. Ms A was unhappy that, although she had the keys to the property for less than 24 hours, she then received an invoice for a full month's rent. She said that despite signing both the agreement and the notice of termination which had stated that 28 days' notice was required, she had been verbally assured that she would not have to pay the one month's notice. Ms A was also unhappy that a council tax debt for the property was referred to sheriff officers. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that there were no notes of the conversations between the council and Ms A. The council said that they had not given her such verbal assurance, and that the 28 days' notice would only be waived in very exceptional circumstances and would need the approval of senior management. Senior management had in fact considered the request but had decided that the 28 day rent period would be charged. The council said that as Ms A had had the keys for 24 hours they needed to start the 'void' process again to allow safety checks to be carried out. (A 'void' is a property that does not have a current tenancy). The council did say that they would expect there to be a record of conversations of a significant nature. We were critical of the fact that there were no notes in this case, but noted that the council had taken action to address this matter. Overall, we found that there was not enough evidence for us to say for sure that an assurance had been given to Ms A that her rent period would be waived. When we looked at the issue about council tax, we found that although the council had resolved the matter by awarding a discount and cancelling the account, Ms A was still unhappy w

Mr C complained that a council street cleaning team had falsely completed work sheets on two occasions and that the council had not responded appropriately to complaints about this. Mr C said the streets around his home had not been cleaned on the two days in question and provided photographs of litter and leaves on the streets around his home taken over a three week period before and after the days in question. Mr C complained to the council but was dissatisfied with the council's response, and said that the council had not directly addressed his complaint about falsification. When we investigated, we found that the work sheet in question was an operational route sheet which was subject to change according to priority. The council said that they had investigated Mr C's complaint. The cleaning team confirmed they had followed the operational route sheet on the days in question and had cleaned the streets. The sheet did not indicate to what extent each street had been cleaned and the council accepted that Mr C's street may not have been completely delittered. However, we did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence of falsification on the part of the street cleaning teams. The photographs provided by Mr C were of limited evidential value, and did not provide a whole street picture which would enable us to carry out a before and after comparison. We also found that the council had written to Mr C's MP after the complaint was made, refuting the allegation of falsification. We did not uphold the complaint about the council's failure to respond properly, as the council had made their position on the matter of falsification clear. Mr C had received a copy of the council's letter from his MP. Related reading View Decision Report 201201092 as a PDF (11.45 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's handling of planning proposals for a new academic campus some distance from his home. A council committee granted planning approval in principle in May 2010 although the consent was not issued until March 2011. An initial application for consent for 'matters specified in conditions' was submitted in June 2011 and that formed the main basis of Mr C's four complaints. (Such applications relate to conditions attached to planning permissions in principle which require the further approval, consent or agreement of the planning authority for any detailed aspect of the development.) Mr C complained that the council provided inaccurate and misleading information about access arrangements to the campus; a council officer failed to remain impartial when providing advice to a councillor and acted unreasonably by failing to respond to Mr C's letter, and the chief executive failed to respond to Mr C's letter of complaint within a reasonable time scale. Our investigation found that the council conceded that the report on the first 'matters specified in conditions' application could have been clearer. It was not, however, acted on. The matter was put to the relevant council committee and continued, when it was re-presented in an amended form and considered along with a second 'matters specified in conditions' application. Both applications were approved. As we found no evidence of maladministration we did not uphold this complaint. Nor did we uphold the complaints about the council officer. We found no evidence to suggest that she was not impartial in giving professional advice to the councillor, and while Mr C provided evidence that he had emailed a letter to her, we could not independently confirm that she had received it. We did, however, uphold the complaint about the chief executive's response, as he accepted that it had been delayed. We did not make any recommendations as he had already apologised to Mr C for this. Related reading View Dec