SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained about the way the council dealt with a retrospective planning application for work that she had carried out in her garden. In particular, she was concerned that the council alleged that trees had been felled without authorisation, destabilising the bank. She was concerned that these comments had affected her planning application and raised public feeling against her application. We found that the council had only noted one instance of unauthorised felling, the previous year, and had discussed this with Mrs C at the time, when she had agreed to replanting. We found that it was reasonable for them to mention this in the planning report and that information later passed to a councillor, which Mrs C had complained about, was also simply noting the landscape officer's observations. As we took the view that the council had reported the matter accurately, and as the landscape officer's observations were reasonable, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100945 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a council tenant. He complained about an invoice that the council sent him in respect of a repair to an outside tap. He said that the tap was damaged by the council’s contractors when doing modernisation work to his house, and he had reported the damage several times via the council’s online complaints service but they had failed to respond. The tap then fell off when his son brushed against it and he contacted the council for assistance when he could not turn the water off. As the tap had originally been damaged by the contractors, however, he considered it unreasonable that the council sent him the bill for this repair. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. During our investigation we found no evidence that he had reported the damage any earlier. We also listened to a recording of a telephone conversation, in which he reported that his son had damaged the tap and agreed to pay the bill. Related reading View Decision Report 201200842 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C was the owner-occupier of a flat underneath a council property. She regularly reported to the council that the actions of the tenant above caused her nuisance. Her reports mainly concerned her neighbour pacing the floor for prolonged periods, the constant drone of a television which was occasionally turned up to a high volume and clearly audible telephone conversations. The council visited Mrs C's property on numerous occasions and installed a noise recording system in her home for a week, but did not find evidence of antisocial noise. Mrs C considered that the council's actions were inadequate and thought that they should install additional sound insulation between the flats. She asked us to investigate a number of points, including the level of noise required before the council take action; the council saying that the costs for potential work on other properties were a reason for not doing work on hers; the council's consideration of her human rights; and the response times to her noise complaints. After considering the council's comments, actions and obligations, we found that the council acted reasonably in relation to all of the above points so we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103531 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who has a history of physical and mental health conditions, was in prison outside Scotland. On release, he travelled to Scotland, where he approached a council for assistance with homelessness and housing issues. A few weeks after he arrived, Mr C was arrested and sent to prison. He was released from the prison on licence around a year later. Mr C's licence was revoked within a few weeks and he was returned to prison. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to comply with their statutory and procedural responsibilities for housing him, in the lead up to and after his release from prison. We found from the evidence that the council did not know that Mr C was due to arrive in Scotland, and we did not find any failings by the council in the lead up to his first release. Neither did we find any failings in their handling of Mr C's application for more permanent housing on his first release. In addition, we did not find any failings in how the council dealt with Mr C's homelessness and housing situation in the lead up to, and following, his second release. However, we did uphold Mr C's complaint about how the council dealt with his homelessness situation after his first release. They had a duty to identify accommodation that was appropriate to Mr C's needs. They had to do so reasonably, and in line with relevant legislation and guidance. In our view, their actions were unacceptable, as the temporary accommodation was unsuitable. It also appeared that council staff were confused about how to deal with Mr C's case; there was a contradiction between council records and the view of a GP who specialises in dealing with people who are homeless, and there was delay in processing Mr C's homelessness application. We made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Mr C complained that the condition of the footpath beside his home meant that he had difficulty in accessing his driveway. After he contacted the council about this, he had spoken to two workers marking up the damaged areas on the footpath. They suggested that he could expect it to be fixed within three weeks. When this did not happen he complained. The council accepted that the footpath was sub-standard but explained that, for budgetary reasons, they had to prioritise more significant repairs. As the condition of the footpath was not poor enough to cause any safety risk, and they were satisfied that Mr C could access his home from the public road, they could not in fact give him a time-frame in which the repairs would be carried out. Mr C also complained about his telephone conversation with a council employee who terminated the call. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council complied with their responsibilities in terms of roads maintenance. We considered it reasonable for them to prioritise repairs, which was a decision they were entitled to take. On the matter of the telephone call, as we did not have evidence to conclude that the call was handled inappropriately, we could not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201200214 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

Mr C, who is a councillor, wrote to the housing partnership on behalf of a tenant (Mr A) who was unhappy with their handling of his complaint about the way he was treated by a staff member. Mr C complained that he was given inaccurate information about the partnership's complaints procedure and had wrongly been told that there were no further stages through which to pursue his complaint. Our investigation found that the partnership had not handled Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints policy. The policy says that service users have a right to complain about the behaviour of staff members if they consider the behaviour to be unacceptable. The policy also sets out the three stages of the complaints process, which end in referral to our office. During our investigation, the chief executive of the partnership wrote and apologised to Mr C. She explained that she had decided that his complaint would not be handled under their complaints policy, and acknowledged that he should have been told that. She also agreed that the complaint should have been handled in line with the complaints policy, in which case he would have been able to come to us if he remained dissatisfied with the partnership's final response. She apologised for these failings. We, therefore, upheld the complaint but did not make any recommendations because of the action that the partnership had already taken. Related reading View Decision Report 201200078 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lived in an old building, which was in a state of disrepair. He and other owners sought the assistance of a local councillor, who arranged for the owners to meet with council officers. The owners initially instructed a firm of surveyors whose report specified the extent of disrepair. With changes in the funding of private sector repairs taking effect from 1 April 2010, the owners agreed with the officers' proposal that the council serve a notice under section 108 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. This would entitle owners to a minimum grant of 50 percent of eligible costs (less recording fee), with the possibility of a higher percentage based on an assessment of income over the previous 52 weeks. Applications would require to be submitted and approved by 31 March 2010. The notice was served in August 2009. In January 2010, Mr C applied for a grant, and declared that his then partner was resident. The council asked for her income details and Mr C supplied them in mid-February. It turned out that Mr C's partner's income had been such that Mr C's application would attract only the minimum (50 percent) grant. While the application for the grant was still under consideration, Mr C's partner left the household. Mr C told a council grant officer about this when they visited him in late March. Mr C was awarded the minimum 50 percent grant (less recording fee). Mr C was unhappy, as he felt that with his partner no longer resident, the application should only take his income into account, leading to a higher percentage of grant being awarded to him. Mr C's complaint to us had four aspects: that the council failed to provide him with clarity on his entitlement to repairs grants and how these are calculated; delayed, failed to communicate, and were inefficient in the re-assessment of his grant application; failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with their own complaints procedures; and failed to follow through with their requirement to ensure that

Mr and Mrs C complained about comments that they said a council officer had made about Mr C. The council initially dealt with the complaint through the statutory social work complaints procedure and upheld it. However, after taking legal advice the council decided that the complaint had been outwith the remit of that procedure and had it investigated by a council officer instead. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the outcome of that investigation. Our investigation found that the legal advice said that, as Mr and Mrs C's complaint did not relate to the provision of a service, it should not have been considered by the statutory social work review committee. The council were entitled to seek legal advice, and to decide whether to accept all or part of that advice. However, we were critical that they had not obtained it before having the matter considered by the statutory social work review committee. We were also concerned about the length of time that it took before the council officer's investigation was completed, and made a recommendation about this.

Mrs C owns a property that is leased to a council tenant by a letting agent. Mrs C complained that there was an unreasonable delay by the council to act on her agents' request to make a direct payment of local housing allowance to them, not her tenant, because the tenant had rent arrears. Mrs C complained about the council's communication with her agents. She also complained about a failure to respond to her request to send the case to appeal, and to handle her complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure. We upheld most of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had delayed in taking action to pay Mrs C's letting agents direct, combined with a failure to respond to her letting agents' enquiries when the payment was not made. When they responded to Mrs C's complaint, the council had already accepted that there was a failure to respond to the letting agents' correspondence and to provide advice about the appeal procedure in the decision notice. There was also evidence that the council did not meet their customer care standards in the handling of Mrs C's formal complaint. We did not, however, find that anything had gone wrong in respect of Mrs C's request for an appeal, as although she was told about her right of appeal, no request was received from her or anyone acting on her behalf.

In response to a demand notice, Mr C paid a council tax bill for which he was not liable. The property concerned was a church manse (a house provided for a church minister). Following the departure of the occupier, Mr C had asked the council to forward any outstanding bills to the home of one of the church officers. However, the council named Mr C on the demand notice that threatened debt recovery action in various forms. In an attempt to prevent the church officer being subjected to such action, Mr C decided to pay the money due, in the belief that, when it was explained to the council, they would refund the payment. The council refused to do so, even though they admitted that Mr C was not liable and said that they also believed that Mr C did not intend to take responsibility for the liable person's debt. Mr C complained that the council refused to return the money; wrongly named a church officer on the demand notice; and had not dealt properly with his complaint. We upheld all of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council were wrong to retain money that had been paid as a result of their error and to name a church officer on the demand notice. We also found that the council did not consider the complaint adequately and in line with their own policies. We made recommendations to address these failings.

Mr C complained that the council had not stored his belongings safely while he was in prison. He had been living in temporary accommodation before beginning his prison sentence in December 2010. His belongings were bagged and tagged by a removals contractor and placed in a council owned storage facility. When Mr C came to collect them in June 2011, he complained that some of his personal items were missing. He provided lists of items to the council. The council’s position was that the belongings bagged and tagged had not been touched or moved during the time in storage. However, at that time the council did not keep inventories of belongings kept in storage. Since October 2011, as a result of Mr C's complaint, they have requested copies of inventories prepared by the removals contractor. However, we found that this does not include a fully itemised inventory. We upheld Mr C’s complaint as we found the current system meant the council could not provide evidence of what exactly they were storing and for whom.

Mr C is a council tenant, who complained to the council about maintenance issues. He was specifically concerned about damaged trees, re-location of grit bins, a loose aerial, roughcasting repairs, rhone cleaning, and a missing skirting board and badly fitting extractor in his house. He was also dissatisfied with how his complaints about these matters had been handled. In our investigation we reviewed the council's actions in all of these areas, noting that the matters had been ongoing for some time and that Mr C had had considerable contact with the council about them. We were, however, satisfied that the maintenance issues had been, or were being, dealt with in line with the council's relevant policies and procedures and that the council had handled his complaints appropriately and in line with their complaints procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201103894 as a PDF (16.51 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a workshop on an area of land identified as a housing site in the local development plan (the plan) agreed in 2006. When carrying out a public consultation on a proposed update to the plan in 2010, the council decided to notify all properties within and adjacent to the site. Mr C learned of this in early 2011, and raised concerns with the council that he had not been notified of the proposed plan. The council told him that they had notified people of the proposed plan using the corporate newsletter and Royal Mail's address database, and that Mr C's property did not appear on these. They accepted that this system was not totally accurate, and explained that they also advertised the proposed plan locally. They apologised that their efforts had not ensured that Mr C had been made aware of the proposed plan. Mr C also raised concerns that, after he spoke to a councillor about the matter, a developer had been made aware that Mr C had complained to the council. He asked the council if they knew how this had happened. In responding the council said that no council officer had provided this information to the developer. They asked Mr C which councillor he had spoken to and said that on receipt of that information they would check what their involvement might have been. Mr C supplied this information to the council but did not receive a response. During our enquiries the council reviewed their communication with Mr C and wrote to him telling him about the action they had taken to investigate whether the councillor had provided information about him to the developer, and explaining their conclusion that he had not. They also explained that, although they had spoken to the councillor at the time, they had not replied to Mr C because he had said that he was bringing his complaints to us. We decided that the council had acted reasonably in the notification process, and that their explanation for why they had not responded to Mr C was also reasonable, as at that stage M

Mrs C is a council tenant. In 1997, she moved from one property to another in an exchange scheme. It was a condition of the scheme that Mrs C accepted her new house in its current condition and that no non-emergency/non-statutory repairs would be carried out during the first six months. Mrs C told us that when she took over the house, she reported that there was a chip in the bath tub. She said that the council refused to repair the bath and told her that she had to take the property as seen. In 2011 Mrs C transferred again. The council made a pre-transfer assessment, and assessed the bath as 'damaged'. They sent her an invoice for more than £600 to cover the cost of replacing it. Mrs C said that the damage referred to was the same chip that existed when she moved into the property. In deciding to hold Mrs C liable for replacing the bath, the council relied on the 'Application to Exchange Houses' form and the end of tenancy document completed by the council officer who inspected the property in 1997. They also referred to a copy of the pre–transfer report prepared before Mrs C vacated the property in 2011. Our investigation found that the 1997 forms were largely incomplete, with only the section about the décor of the property filled in. There was no record of the condition of the bath. The council took the view that because the documents did not say the bath was damaged, this meant the damage occurred after Mrs C moved in. We, however, took the view that as there was nothing in writing to show that the bath was inspected at the end of the previous tenant's tenancy, this was not evidence that it was undamaged at that date. The council also told us that when they carried out the pre-transfer inspection in 2011 they told Mrs C that she would be charged for the bath. When we looked at the relevant report, we found that although the fact that the bath was 'chipped' was noted, there was no indication that this was rechargeable. There was no agreement by Mrs C in the decl

Mrs C's father was the tenant of a council property for many years until his death in 2011. In 2007, with the support of his family, Mrs C's father had applied to buy his house. The council considered the application under the relevant legislation in place at the time (The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987). They refused it, on the grounds that the house had been adapted to accommodate a disabled person. Following her father's death, however, Mrs C said that the council let the house to an able bodied person and that the adaptations were removed. She complained to the council about this but remained dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us. Our investigation found that, although the council had let the house to a person without a disability, this was only after procedures had been followed to try to accommodate a person specifically in need of the facilities provided. Only movable adaptations had been removed, and the council intend to keep the house (and the permanent adaptations that were made to it) within their housing stock. We were satisfied that the council appropriately refused to sell the house to Mrs C's late father, and that they had considered and applied appropriate legislation and policies in making their decisions. We did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201104084 as a PDF (16.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that a council officer advised her that the electric central heating in the council house she was offered would be replaced with gas heating. She believes that she needs this as she suffers from asthma and other respiratory (breathing) health problems. She said that she was told that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority points. She also said that it was only after she accepted the property that the council explained that the heating would not be replaced. The council told us that the housing officer told her that they might be able to change the heating system and that he would contact the property services department to find out if this was possible. As the heating system in the property was only five years old, however, it was not possible to replace it. They confirmed that, as the house had been assessed as being suitable for her needs, she was informed that if she refused the property she would lose her gold priority status. In our investigation, we considered her concerns. We confirmed that, although we could not be certain what was said by the housing officer, if she refused a property which was assessed as meeting her needs she would have lost her gold priority points. We also found that the council had reviewed information from her GP and a respiratory consultant and were satisfied that the electric heating would not have a negative impact on Mrs C's health. As Mrs C would indeed have lost her gold priority points had she not accepted this property, and as we could not establish for certain what exactly was said by the housing officer, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103628 as a PDF (17.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C entered into a council tenancy in 2007. Before she took the tenancy, the council had applied for and received Pressured Area Status (PAS) (which indicates that the demand for social housing outstrips supply) which meant that they had suspended tenants' right to buy their property until 2010. Ms C had, however, anticipated that after serving the qualifying five years as a tenant she would be able to buy her home in 2012. In 2009 she applied to install central heating at her own expense. She was not specifically told then that the council might apply to extend the initial PAS period. The council announced that intention in October 2009, and the Scottish Government granted a five year extension. Changes in the legislation after that allowed the council to exercise their powers to extend the period further, to 2020. Ms C complained that she had not been told of the possibility of the council applying for an extension, either when she signed for the tenancy or when she asked for permission to install central heating. The council decided to apply for an extension five months after they gave Ms C permission to install central heating. While Ms C was clearly adversely affected by this and other policy decisions, in the absence of errors in the decision-making process we could not investigate these. We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found that Ms C's original tenancy documents clearly stated that PAS was in place and that the council reserved the right to apply for an extension. She signed the documents and, therefore, the council clearly gave her accurate information about the position on right to buy. Related reading View Decision Report 201102109 as a PDF (17.49 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C lives in a council owned sheltered housing complex. Through an advocate, she complained to us that she was the victim of vandalism and pranks by staff. She said that her mail and electricity had been tampered with as a prank and a window had been vandalised. Mrs C was dissatisfied with the council's investigation into her complaints and failure, in her view, to take disciplinary action against the staff concerned. While we recognised that Mrs C was disappointed with the council's handling of the matter, we explained that the outcome she wanted (ie disciplinary action against staff) was not something we could achieve. She confirmed that she understood this but nevertheless asked us to investigate and do what we could for her. We asked the council to send us copies of the records of complaints made by Mrs C, or on her behalf by her advocate, over the last 18 months, and details of the investigations undertaken by staff and the council into the individual reports. We also asked for documents relating to the investigation into Mrs C's complaint. Our investigation found that Mrs C had complained about various issues over a number of years. Some of the complaints related to service failure (for example, a failure by sheltered housing staff to test the pull cord in her home). Some were about her heating and some were of a more personal nature and related to issues of theft (a police matter) and about the staff in the sheltered housing complex. Our investigation confirmed that the council had investigated all the complaints that Mrs C had made about repairs in her home, in some cases on a number of occasions, and they had taken appropriate action by offering to either carry out repairs or provide a replacement. The council showed us that they arranged for a clerk of works to check Mrs C's windows and were satisfied that these did not need repair or replacement as they were functioning properly. The electricity had also been checked and no faults had been identified, a

Mrs C was awarded a grant through the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 for repairs to her house roof. As the initial contractors could not carry out the works quickly enough, Mrs C obtained a further contractor directly who proceeded to carry out the works. Once the contractor completed the works, they applied for payment of the grant. The works were inspected by a council officer and the grant monies paid. Mrs C was not happy with the quality of the works and complained that the council should not have paid the monies. The council had inspected the works and had requested further works be carried out before payment of the grant. As it was Mrs C who instructed the contractor, she had a legal relationship with them and would normally be able to pursue them for any problems with the work. The contractor appeared, however, to be no longer trading. We found that the council did not have a responsibility to monitor or guarantee the works. We established they had inspected the works which were completed to their satisfaction for the purposes of making the grant payment. For this reason we were satisfied that the council had acted appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102085 as a PDF (14.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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 had been a council tenant for three years. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to anti-social behaviour and that the council had failed to take effective action. As result of the antisocial behaviour he was forced to give up his tenancy in 2011 and he complained that the council had failed to take appropriate action at that time to meet his housing needs. Our investigation found that during 2009 there had been faults in the council's handling of the matter. However, from December 2009 Mr C had made no further complaints until August 2010 and we found the council to have followed its policy in relation to Mr C's complaints from that period. In view of the faults identified during 2009, however, we upheld the complaint. We found that, when Mr C was forced to leave his tenancy in 2011, the council followed their policy and we did not uphold the complaint that they had failed to meet his housing needs.

Ms C was a council tenant from 2003 until 2010. Before she vacated the property, a housing officer carried out an inspection. Their written report noted there was writing on the walls in the bedrooms and poor décor in the stairway, but did not note any repairs to be carried out, or if any such repairs were to be the responsibility of the tenant or the council. The report was signed by the housing officer but not by Ms C. After Ms C moved out, the council undertook a vacant house inspection which noted a number of repairs and cleaning jobs to be carried out. Ms C was initially charged around £1,700 for these, although the invoice was later reduced to just over £1,200. Ms C complained she had not been notified prior to leaving the property that there was repair work to be carried out and, therefore, had not had the opportunity to undertake the work prior to the council doing so. The council said that Ms C had been aware of her obligations as tenant through her tenancy agreement, and the 'Vacating Your Tenancy' booklet that was given to her at the inspection. We, however, upheld this complaint given that Ms C had not signed the report, and that none of the repairs or cleaning subsequently charged had been noted on the report. We found that she had not had sufficient notification of or opportunity to undertake the repairs. We did not uphold Ms C's second complaint that the council had not undertaken work she had requested during her tenancy. There was no evidence available to show that Ms C had made such requests. We also found it reasonable that the council chose to undertake repairs prior to a new tenant moving in, in order to bring the property up to a reasonable standard for re-let. We upheld Ms C's final complaint that the council failed to provide details about the two invoices issued. We found the information provided to be unclear and, on two occasions, erroneous. The council provided further information to us about what the remaining charges were for, and we re

Mr C complained that after he applied for a grant in 2008 the council failed to return the original title deeds for his house and supporting documentation. He said he only became aware of this in 2011 following a further grant application. He said that a council officer uplifted the original documentation and failed to return it, or send it to Registers of Scotland (ROS) where the title to his home was to be amended following the grant application. He also considered that he should have received acknowledgement that the £30 fee for making these amendments had been paid. The council explained that they made a full search of their records and returned the only documentation they held - a copy of the title deeds. They pointed out that their procedures at the time only required that they obtain a copy of the deeds to support a grant application. They provided us with copies of correspondence sent to Mr C at the time of the grant application, which explained that the council would contact ROS to request amendment to the title to show the grant restrictions. They also explained that the £30 fee would be deducted from the grant at source. We found no evidence to support Mr C's view that he supplied his original title deeds or that the council should have forwarded these to ROS. ROS have confirmed that the title was amended. As the council explained the process to Mr C at the time, and as there is no evidence to show that they failed to follow the correct process, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201101725 as a PDF () Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had decided against proceeding with a traffic regulation order (TRO) to restrict parking following a committee meeting where only objectors to the proposed order were allowed to address the committee. He was of the view that supporters should also have been allowed to present their case to the committee and should be advised of their right to do so. The statutory framework under which TROs operate sets out the procedure which must be followed by a council when considering implementation of a TRO. It is these regulations which require that objectors have their concerns considered by the council. It does not require that similar consideration be given to supporters of a TRO. Although supporters of a TRO could attend an open committee meeting such as this one, under the terms of the council's standing orders, there is no requirement for them to be allowed to be heard. Related reading View Decision Report 201100283 as a PDF (13.79 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018