SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained that during a regeneration process the council unreasonably failed to provide information to residents; misinformed them; or changed or denied information given to them about the process and their rights. This included information about 'right to buy'; financial assistance with moving costs; and rehousing options. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably, without telling residents, closed and sealed the bin stores and rubbish chutes in the area, and unreasonably failed to repair street lighting despite requests to do so. Our investigation found that much of the information provided to residents during the regeneration consultation process and the ongoing regeneration programme was either provided verbally to individuals, or informally at public meetings and open days. For this reason, it was difficult for us to determine what exactly Ms C had been told or promised. Although we, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaints about the information provided on the regeneration process, we made a recommendation to address some of the issues that arose around this process. We did uphold Ms C's other two complaints. The council had explained that the bin stores and rubbish chutes were closed to prevent vandalism; fire setting; and theft. Although we considered that this was in itself reasonable, we found that the way the council went about it was not, nor were the responses provided to Ms C when she complained. The council told Ms C that the electricity supplier for the area had insisted that the bin stores be sealed up to prevent vandalism and to stop copper wiring being stolen from electrical switching boxes. However, Ms C said that the boxes were not actually in the bin stores but in cupboards next to them. During our investigation - but not until some months into it - the council acknowledged that they knew that the boxes were not actually in the bin stores. They said that council officers had referred to the 'bin store' when they mean

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A, whose mother (Mrs A) required permanent residential care. The council had assessed Mrs A's finances and decided that she was able to fund her own care. Mr A complained to the council about their handling of the financial assessment and, dissatisfied with their response, took the matter to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). Based on the evidence submitted to them, the CRC ruled that Mrs A should be self-funding. Mr C complained that the information the council submitted to the CRC was incomplete and misleading. Furthermore, he did not consider that there was any evidence that the CRC took into account relevant guidance and legislation when reaching their decision. Mr C also raised concerns about the information that was made available to Mr A before and after the CRC hearing, and that the CRC chairman failed to disclose a conflict of interest. Our investigation found that the information provided to Mr A before and after the CRC hearing was complete and in line with the published CRC procedure. The council's submission to the CRC referred to the relevant guidance and legislation, but we noted that it misquoted a key part of the legislation and paraphrased other sections without providing a full copy of them. Although we recognised that it was for the council to submit information in support of their position on the case, we found no evidence of the CRC having scrutinised the evidence submitted to them or having sought out copies of the guidance and legislation. We considered their report to be poor in that it did not give any detail of the reasoning behind their decision. We felt this was important as the report was to be passed to the relevant council committe for consideration of the recommendations being proposed by the CRC. We found that the chairman had known Mr A's wife in the past. We accepted, however, that there was no way that he could have identified this potential conflict of interest before the

Mr C complained that the council would not provide a suitable alternative to the National Entitlement Card in order for him to access the travel concession he was entitled to. Mr C had objections to the nature of the National Entitlement Card, which he described as an identity card. He sent the card back to the council on two different occasions requesting that an alternative, single use for travel card be made available. However, the council did not provide this. Mr C subsequently submitted a formal complaint, and thereafter complained to us about the way the council had handled his complaint. We did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to respond appropriately to Mr C's request for an alternative card. We noted the scheme was nationally run and managed and it was not for the council to provide alternative versions of access to travel concession. We found evidence that they had contacted the national office to seek advice about Mr C's request. We did, however, note that the council could have told Mr C they had done this, which would have given him more confidence in the process. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's complaints handling. We found this to be poor in a number of ways, including the fact that two of their responses did not reach Mr C, that Mr C had to contact the council to chase up responses, and that some parts of the responses suggested that they had misunderstood the complaints. We noted the council had committed to complying with the new model complaints handling procedure being implemented by the SPSO's Complaints Standards Authority in early 2013.

Mr C owns, but does not live in, a flat which is in part of a tenement building. In the building there are 11 other flats occupied by a mixture of private owners and council tenants. One of the tenants on the top floor reported to the council that there was water coming in, and the council arranged an external inspection of the property. The inspection indicated that repairs were needed to prevent further water penetration. As a co-owner, the council issued a notice of repair to all other current occupiers under the terms of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. This explained the broad legal position about repairs and offered three options for carrying these out. An estimate for the works was enclosed. It was made clear that there had to be a majority decision to proceed or a statutory notice for essential repairs might be needed. Mr C said that he did not receive the council’s notices, and he complained to the council that they did not deal with the matter in accordance with their tenement management scheme. He also complained that he was unreasonably pressed by the council into making payment, despite his request for the matter to be put on hold while it was under investigation. Our investigation found that the council had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and their own procedures and, while it was accepted that Mr C did not receive the notices, we also accepted that these were posted to him, which completed the council’s obligations. Through their own investigation, the council had identified that there were some improvements that could be undertaken (for example, it was accepted that the description of the work contained in the statutory notices was not sufficiently accurate and they would be revising their processes in the future). On looking into the issue of putting on pressure to make payment, we found that the legislation provided that once a majority decision was reached, it was binding on the owners and could be enforced by any owner

Mr C owns a tenement flat in Edinburgh but has not lived there since June 2008. He told us that at that time he arranged with the Royal Mail to re-direct his mail, contacted the council’s revenues services about the change in liability for council tax and provided a forwarding address. In June 2010 he had registered with the council as a landlord, and day-to-day property matters were in the hands of a local property management company. In February 2009, after Mr C had left the property, the council sent a notice to him and other owners under Section 24 of the City of Edinburgh District Council Confirmation Order Act 1991, telling them that repairs were needed to the property. Mr C only learned of the existence of the notice in 2012 when, in arranging a new mobile phone contract, he was told that the council had obtained an inhibition order against him because he had not paid the bill for these repairs, which were ultimately arranged by the council. Mr C was unhappy that despite telling the council that he had moved and giving them his forwarding address, he had not received contact about the repairs notice or the subsequent bill for the work. Our investigation established that the council’s property conservation section wrote three letters to Mr C at the flat, firstly to inform him of the need for the works. They then said that in light of lack of action from owners the council would arrange repairs, and then in November 2009 they said that a contractor had been instructed with a start date, and provided the duration and indicative cost of the contract. None of these letters were returned undelivered. Some five letters were sent to the flat after the works were completed, in pursuit of Mr C’s share of the costs. Mr C received none of these and none were returned to the council. The council then put the matter in the hands of debt recovery agents who pursued action in the courts, culminating in the inhibition order. We noted that Mr C had had his letters for

Mrs C was issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking in a restricted area and obstructing the road. She complained to us that the council failed to give her the right to appeal the PCN to the parking adjudicator. In considering her complaint, the council explained that they followed the correct process when dealing with the PCN, and had no records of Mrs C requesting an appeal. Our investigation was unable to obtain evidence from either party to support Mrs C's position. As we could not find additional supporting evidence that she had requested an appeal, we were unable to uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201204499 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

An advocacy worker (Ms C) complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A about the special school attended by their son (Master A). Following an episode of challenging behaviour, the school requested that he be collected and taken home. She said that when he was picked up, he reported that he was sore, and was later found to have unexplained bruising to his body. Ms C made six complaints about this. We upheld three of Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the school had unreasonably physically restrained Master A. Nor did we find evidence that the school had not provided one-to-one support, as we could find no consistent record of their having agreed to do so. We did, however, find significant shortcomings in the school's record-keeping in relation to the incident and also of meetings where Master A's needs were discussed. We did not uphold the complaint that his teacher did not have sufficient training or experience.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a repair to a communal drain. He complained that the council had failed to treat it as a Right to Repair issue and should have compensated him £100 for not dealing with the repair quickly enough; had delayed in undertaking the repair; and in cleaning up the affected area; had failed to arrange for further work to the concrete slabs surrounding the sewer in the communal area; and that there was delay and inaccuracy by the council in responding to his complaints. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation established that this type of repair was not covered in the prescribed list of repairs to tenanted property under the Right to Repair scheme, as set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We also found that the repair to unblock the drain was completed within the terms of the council's repairs policy; and as there is no specific timescale for cleaning repairs, and this was attended to within a short period of time, we did not find that there was delay in cleaning up the area. The council told us that they had not been aware of Mr C's concerns about the condition of the concrete slabs before we contacted them about this, and it was later confirmed that this had been attended to. We also found that the council had responded to the complaint within the required timescales and, while there was a regrettable minor inaccuracy in the council's response to Mr C about the time and date for completion of the repair, it did not amount to a significant or material failure. Related reading View Decision Report 201202296 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant consent to his neighbour to drop the kerb fronting his property to provide a paved area for parking. Mr C complained that the finished work did not comply with the consent or the assurances he had been given that action would be taken to rectify this, and said that the effect of this was a loss of parking space in an already congested street. We found that the council had told Mr C at the time of his initial complaint that his neighbour's proposal was regarded as permitted development, and so did not require planning permission. Mr C was told that a permit would be required to lower the kerb. He complained to the council when the works were completed, saying that the final length of the actual dropped kerb was longer than he had been told would be permitted. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council had investigated it and, from inspection of the site and discussion, had accepted the contractor's explanation for the decision to alter the length of the dropped kerb. When permission was given to drop the kerb, the width of the white access protection marking line was set at 4.5 metres. The council then decided that this could be reduced from 4.5 metres to 3.6 metres, to minimise the loss of resident parking space. The council had told Mr C this in their correspondence with him. We were satisfied that the council had considered his concerns and exercised their discretion in the matter in a reasonable and fair way. Related reading View Decision Report 201202768 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the council's processing of two planning applications in respect of the demolition of a property in a conservation area and the erection of a new home. Two applications were required due to separate consent being required under conservation area consent requirements. We did not uphold her complaint that the processing was incorrect as the second application did not include information required by council guidance, because our investigation found the application did in fact include this information. We noted however that in their response, the council had not made this clear to Ms C. We did uphold Ms C's complaint that the council did not respond properly to her complaints. That there were lengthy unexplained delays, and the final response failed to address an additional concern Ms C had raised. We also noted it was not reasonable that the report about the first application was not available on the council's online portal until eight days after the application was granted. We recognised this prevented members of the public having faith in the process. We also noted some issues in relation to the way the two applications were handled; for example, the applications could have been handled alongside each other, as the process as it stood suggested one had pre-empted the other. In addition, there was some key wording missed out in error in the first application, which could potentially have been misleading and suggested the second application would not be required. We drew this to the council's attention and made three recommendations.

Mr C is the owner-occupier of a property in a conservation area. His next-door neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish a section of an external wall and build a small single storey extension at the back of his property. The extension was to have a glazed door to the side (facing Mr C's property) and was to be clad with blue-grey stained timber. The council produced a report of handling recommending that the application should be granted. Mr C complained that the character of the extension did not fit with the surrounding area and that the report of handling failed to refer to the local area character assessment. Mr C also complained about privacy issues relating to the door facing his property. The council recognised that it had failed to specifically mention the local area character assessment in its consideration, apologised for this and took action to ensure that decision-makers do so in the future. However, they said that this would not have affected the outcome of the decision and that they thought that the decision-maker's consideration of the general character of the extension and privacy issues was reasonable. Following advice from our planning adviser, we decided that the council failed to consider the local area character assessment when it should have. However, our adviser told us that the key point was whether the principles underlying the relevant material considerations were, in fact, taken into account. In his view, they were. We considered, therefore, that the council had taken enough action to remedy the failures in this complaint. Furthermore, after careful consideration of the council's planning decision, we were unable to find evidence that the council misrepresented matters in its planning decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201101681 as a PDF (11.52 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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, who was homeless, said he was duped into bidding for a property that he did not want when the council used a misleading image to advertise the property. The picture used was a computer generated image which Mr C said bore no resemblance to the actual building being constructed and the council did not disclose that it was a multi-storey building. Mr C said that, as a recovering drug addict, the thought of living in a multi-storey block filled him with anxiety. The council, however, said they had fulfilled their statutory duty by making him an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. As they had fulfilled their duty under the homelessness legislation, the council removed his silver priority (a higher priority given to people in certain circumstances who are waiting to be housed). Mr C said that the medical evidence he provided concerning his grounds for refusing the property, and details of his personal circumstances, were not taken into consideration either at the initial decision to remove his priority, or when he appealed. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council acknowledged that the picture was an artist's impression, but said that the details included on the advert made it clear that the property had not yet been built. Having looked at the image, we found that it was quite clearly an artist's impression of what the building was expected to look like and the description of the property explained that it was a 'new build' and included a lift. We did not consider this unreasonable and found that the council had acted in accordance with their legislative duties and responsibilities and the code of guidance on homelessness in arriving at their decision to remove Mr C's silver priority when he refused a reasonable offer of accommodation. Related reading View Decision Report 201201751 as a PDF (11.56 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives in a conservation area. He complained that the council failed to take into account the relevant planning policies and guidance when considering an application to add an additional storey to the property next to his. Two previous applications for the site had been refused and he was particularly concerned because, while some material changes had been made from the refused applications, the third application had not addressed some of the reasons for refusal of the first two applications. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints. We found that the application was handled correctly, and the relevant conservation policies had been considered. Although the council accepted that there was an error in the planning report in calculating the amount by which the development overshadowed Mr C's property, we found that this did not mean that the decision to grant planning consent was incorrect. Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of his representations about the planning application and the handling of his personal details. We found that the council had provided a reasonable response to his representations about the application. However, while it was not for us to say whether there had been a breach of the Data Protection Act we found that the council had not provided a reasonable response to his representations about this. We upheld that complaint and drew the council's attention to our comments. Related reading View Decision Report 201200344 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of the residents of a new housing development, which consisted of a number of buildings. Planning permission had been approved for the development on the basis that one parking space would be provided for each property. However, due to a mistake by the developer’s architect, there was a shortfall in the number of available spaces. The developer submitted a further application, changing the proposal for one of the buildings so that underground parking that was originally planned would not be provided. Ms C complained that the council approved the second planning application without considering the impact that this had on the overall parking provision for the development. We found that it was appropriate for the second application to be considered separately and on its own merits. However, our planning adviser told us that the council should take into account the wider context of the application, including parking provision for the site as a whole. The council had said that they did not consider the parking problems on the wider site to be a material consideration when determining the second application. We were satisfied that there was clear evidence of the matter being investigated and considered fully. Our investigation highlighted that the developer sold a number of properties to a housing association, and the proposed number of parking spaces for those properties reduced to 25 percent in line with the requirements for affordable housing. However, the properties were later to be sold as shared ownership flats, which require 100 percent parking. We noted that the council did not have a policy in place for shared ownership properties' parking at the time of sale. Once the matter was brought to their attention, however, they amended their policy and ensured that the developer would provide 100 percent parking. Ms C also complained that the council were working with the developer to use existing landscaped space for parking. Residents found t

Mr C complained that the council had charged for a repair they carried out as 'emergency work' under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 (the Act) to repair the lock at the main entrance door to the tenement building where he lived. The information the council provided showed that they decided that the work should be dealt with as an emergency after it was reported that residents could not get in or out of the building. The council also considered that although part of the lock had been removed to allow access to the building, it was still necessary to take immediate action to carry out the repair in the interests of residents' safety, because of concerns that had been expressed about the unsecured stairwell. However, the repair took five days to be carried out and Mr C was unhappy that the council treated the work as an emergency rather than allowing the co-owners to arrange for quotes and have the work carried out more cheaply. Mr C was also unhappy that the council took an unreasonable length of time to provide him with a breakdown of the repair work and associated cost. Under the Act, any owner has the power to instruct or carry out emergency work to a property. All the owners are liable for the cost of the work under the terms of the Tenement Management Scheme. This scheme sets out procedures that flat owners need to follow when making decisions about matters, including maintenance and repairs. 'Emergency work' means work which, before a scheme decision can be obtained, requires to be carried out to scheme property to prevent damage to any part of the tenement, or in the interests of health or safety. The Act does not specify the timescale in which emergency work should be carried out by but guidance issued by the then Scottish Executive said that an emergency will arise only where the work is so urgently necessary that it cannot wait the few hours required for consultation with other owners for a scheme decision to be taken. We found that the time taken

Mr C raised his concern about the council's handling of a consultation exercise carried out as part of the statutory process to introduce priority parking in an area of the city. Mr C was dissatisfied that the council started the formal process without carrying out informal consultation. In addition, Mr C was felt it was unreasonable that the council had not explained in advance the basis on which the decision on priority parking would be made following the formal consultation exercise. During our investigation the council explained that it would have been preferable to have carried out informal consultation. However, in this case they had decided to proceed to the formal consultation which effectively served the same purpose and would allow the views of residents to be taken into account. As we did not find that anything had gone wrong in reaching this decision, which was one they were entitled to take, we could not challenge it. We found no evidence that the council were required to explain the basis upon which a decision would be made, in advance of the formal consultation. In this case, the council had explained why the findings of any consultation exercise could not be determined in advance. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in this case. Related reading View Decision Report 201104633 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives in a village, which is a conservation area. He complained that the council did not take into account the relevant conservation area policies when considering an application to add an additional storey to the property next to his. He was particularly concerned because two previous applications were refused on the grounds that the proposals did not improve or enhance the conservation area, privacy levels would be unacceptably reduced and parking provisions proposed were substandard. He felt there had not been any improvements to these issues when the third application was granted. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the application had been handled correctly, and the relevant conservation policies had been considered. We noted that the proposed extension would be harled (a process of covering stonework with plaster containing small pebbles or stone chips). Although Mr C was opposed to this because other properties in the street were sandstone, the village's conservation area character appraisal listed harling as a traditional material, and described it as one of the unifying elements of the townscape. We also noted that relevant case law says that proposals did not actually have to enhance a conservation area, and if a proposal was neutral and caused no harm, this was acceptable. We noted that the previous refusal because of a lack of parking provision was not in fact a material consideration, and the council's explanations about this could have been clearer. We did not uphold the complaint but drew to the council's attention a number of ways they could have improved their handling of Mr C's complaint, and their explanations for the decision made.

Mr C complained to the council about their decision to implement a change in the numbering of his flat. Mr C said the council failed to act in accordance with the statutory addressing charter (which provides guidance on how such changes should be gone about) and said the council unreasonably failed to provide an explanation as to how the change was implemented. In 2011, we investigated a complaint from an owner of another flat in the same stair. He had complained because the council failed to serve him with statutory repair notices. Our investigation of that complaint found the council had sent the repair notices but they were incorrectly addressed to a flat within the stair that did not exist. We upheld that complaint and we recommended that to address this problem the council write to the owners and seek their views on adopting a different numbering system. The council issued a questionnaire to each owner to seek their views on this. There was not 100 percent agreement between the owners and because of that, the council put the matter to the relevant committee for a decision. The committee decided that the flats - which included Mr C's property - should be renumbered in a clearer, more logical way. When we investigated Mr C's complaint we were satisfied that, in taking the decision to renumber the flat, the council had exercised their discretion, as they were entitled to do. The evidence confirmed that they took the decision after considering the statutory addressing charter and the complaint previously investigated by this office. In addition, we were satisfied the council had provided Mr C with a reasonable explanation as to why the decision was taken to renumber the properties. Related reading View Decision Report 201200971 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, an advocacy worker, complained to the council on behalf of a client (Mrs A). The complaint was about the council complaints review committee (CRC)'s handling of her complaint about her husband's care package. Mrs A said that the CRC was unreasonably delayed; that it did not take all of her evidence into consideration concerning the care provider and the council's offer of a meeting to discuss the complaint; nor did it include important information in its report to the council's Health, Social Care and Housing Review Committee (HSCHRC). We upheld Mrs C's first complaint, as our investigation found that the council had not arranged the CRC hearing within the statutory timescale nor within a reasonable length of time. We did not uphold the complaints that the CRC was not given sufficient evidence to show that the council had attempted to arrange a meeting between Mrs A and the care provider to try and address Mrs A's concerns; that Mrs A had not been given the opportunity to provide her evidence in writing to the CRC and to discuss this at the hearing; and that the CRC had not provided the HSCHRC with their decision and recommendations in line with their policy and procedures. We reached this conclusion as we found no evidence to show that the council had acted wrongly in these matters.

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for a change of use of local commercial premises. Mrs C said that neighbour notification was not carried out correctly, which she believed meant that she and her co-complainants missed a chance to have the planning application decided by committee, and to speak to that committee. Mrs C complained that relevant issues, such as the residential nature of the area and public safety, were not taken into account when assessing the application. She also said that there was delay in responding to her and her co-complainants’ representations about the planning application and in telling them of the outcome. We found no evidence that the neighbour notification procedures were faulty. We also did not uphold the complaint that there was a failure to take account of relevant issues. There was no evidence to suggest that there had been a failure to consider issues which were material to the case when assessing the planning application, or that Mrs C was not given an explanation when she complained. We also saw no evidence that Mrs C’s contact with the council was subject to delay when they responded but we upheld her complaint that she was not notified of the decision. However, as the council had apologised to her for this and, in response to our investigation, advised us that they had looked at why this happened and that a similar error should not happen again, we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201200484 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was liable for council tax. When she received a bill, she emailed the council for assistance because she was having difficulty paying. The council did not respond to her email. They later took recovery action for her council tax arrears, which resulted in a charge being added to her account. Ms C complained that the charge was added to the account even though she was making regular payments. She also complained that her emails were not answered and about the quality of the complaint response letter she received from the council which she said contained spelling and grammatical errors. We did not uphold the complaint about the charge because we found that Ms C's council tax account was in arrears and she did not make reasonable attempts to contact the council to make a payment arrangement. Although we noted that she had emailed them, we did not think that sending one email during a four month period (while aware that they had not yet replied) amounted to a reasonable attempt to contact the council. However, we upheld her complaints that the council did not respond to emails and about the quality of their complaint response.

In the first 14 months of her tenancy, Mrs C experienced six leaks from the flat upstairs. The leaks were repaired by the council within their normal timescales. However, Mrs C thought that they should have done more to prevent recurrence, and that they should redecorate the affected areas. The council decided that it could not have taken any further action to prevent the flooding as events were not linked. They were not, therefore, obliged to redecorate, as this was Mrs C's responsibility. However, they apologised for a delay of around four months in checking the upstairs flat. We upheld the complaints about the delay in gaining access, but as the council had already apologised for this, we made no recommendation. Mrs C also experienced problems with carpet beetles during this period. At first, she found only a few which she reported to the council but did not pursue. She then found more beetles, linked to an infestation upstairs. The council treated Mrs C's house but had difficulty gaining access to the upstairs flat. They explained that this was unavoidable as they did not have the power to force entry. Mrs C was also unhappy with the way in which the council dealt with her complaint. The council agreed they had not met deadlines and had not properly explained what stage matters had reached, and apologised for this. We did not uphold the complaint about the infestation as we found the council had acted appropriately, but we did uphold the complaint about complaints handling as we found that their responses were confusing. As the council had taken action to address this problem by nominating a single point of contact for Mrs C, we made no recommendation. Related reading View Decision Report 201104105 as a PDF (17.36 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said that when considering a planning application the council failed to take into account a number of policies in the local plan for the area. He said that this was wrong, and that the council should also have asked the applicant to submit the planning application and the application for listed building consent together. We reviewed the planning report, the relevant policies within the local plan and the legal framework under which decisions are made and recorded. We noted that the planning officer's report to the committee did not document all relevant policies. However, we were satisfied that the issues highlighted in these policies were taken into consideration. We were also satisfied that listed buildings consent need not be applied for at the same time as planning consent. We did not uphold the complaint but we made a recommendation about the information that should in future be in officers' reports.

Mr C lives in a tenement flat. He complained about procedures adopted by the council in connection with a fresh application for a Housing in Multiple Occupation licence for the flat immediately above his own. The complaint had eight aspects, including that the council delayed unreasonably in replying to Mr C's query about the applicant's display of a site notice and failed to inform him of an available right of appeal to the sheriff. We upheld these two complaints, as our investigation found that the council failed both to respond to Mr C's query and to properly advise him about the availability of appeal. We did not find any evidence that anything had been handled incorrectly in respect of the other six points. Recommendation We recommended that the council: • review their notes of guidance to applicants cited to attend sub-committee hearings on Housing in Multiple Occupation licence applications to include a warning that failure to attend might have important consequences in respect of making a valid appeal to the sheriff. Related reading View Decision Report 201005159 as a PDF (21.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018