SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C made a complaint about a statement made by a council officer in a committee meeting with councillors. The statement was that there was an imminent announcement which could influence the committee's decision. Ms C claimed that the council was unable to substantiate the statement and that it had misled councillors. Following review of the relevant paperwork, the webcast of the council meeting and the council's responses to Ms C's correspondence, we decided that it was reasonable for the council to have expected that the announcement may have contained information that could have influenced the councillors' decision and we could understand why, in the circumstances of the case, the council would want to ensure that they made their decision having considered all the available information. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100421 as a PDF (13.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the council's stair cleaning service which is compulsory for tenants where 50 percent or more of the houses are owned by the council. She said that the charge impacts disproportionately on low paid workers like her brother, who considers it unfair. The complaints we investigated were that the cost of the council’s compulsory charges for stair cleaning were not justified, and that the lack of choice, as a council tenant, about whether to participate in the scheme was unfair. The council provided a reasonable explanation of how the charge was calculated. They also explained that they had decided to make it compulsory in order to benefit the 80 percent of their tenants who were on housing benefit. These were discretionary decisions that the council were entitled to make and we cannot question them, despite the disproportionate impact on Ms C's brother. Related reading View Decision Report 201003024 as a PDF (13.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

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

Mrs C complained that a council officer conducted office bearer elections for a community council outwith the prescribed times detailed in the council's 'Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils' and the community council's constitution. The council said that the terms of the scheme were not clear, and that their area manager had taken appropriate advice before reaching a decision. Mrs C argued that they were unclear and that the elections were invalid. Our investigation found that a reasonable case could made for either of these points of view, and that, therefore the council’s actions were not unreasonable. However, we also noted that the council had explained that they intended to carry out a review of the scheme and the constitution of the community council to seek to improve clarity and we welcomed this decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201005334 as a PDF (13.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lives on a main road opposite a public park. He was unhappy when a planning application was made to build a skate park on an open space in the park, and objected to the application. When the council approved the proposals, Mr C complained to them that the noise assessment was flawed; that there had been material changes in the proposals but the council had not considered them to be such; that there was a conflict of interest of a council officer (who was a skateboarder) working on the project; and that the access provided was not as agreed. We upheld only one of his complaints, however, that the council did not put plants in place to screen the skate park. Although the council explained why this did not happen, we were concerned that this meant that there had been no effective screening to reduce loss of amenity to local residents. We therefore recommended that the council take steps to see if they could resolve this by dense planting. Recommendation We recommend that Renfrewshire Council's planning services liaise with the council’s landscaping officer to evaluate whether an effective dense screen of planting can be introduced, compatible with existing trees and shrubs in the park. Related reading View Decision Report 201000247 as a PDF (14.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council broke an alleged 'silent agreement' between a councillor and the education authority that Roman Catholic children would not be refused a place at a local Roman Catholic school. When we investigated this, it became clear that the 'silent agreement' being referred to was a statement made in a public meeting many years ago, during an earlier consultation process. This was that where a placing request was made for such children at their local denominational school they would not be refused. Mr C told us, however, that although his child is Roman Catholic, they were refused a place at the local denominational school. On further examination, however, it became clear that this school was not the preferred one stated on their school placing request, and was in fact their second choice. Had the family selected the local Roman Catholic school as the preferred school on the placing request, a place would have been available at the time these were allocated. Related reading View Decision Report 201004831 as a PDF (13.76 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

Mr C complained about a council leaflet on refuse collection, the collection service itself, and how his complaint was handled. Mr C complained that the council failed to provide sufficient contact details on their flyers about refuse collection. He was unhappy that there was no postal address on the leaflet and that the only telephone number was a premium rate one. He also complained that the council put unreasonable restrictions on wheelie bin uplift. He said they would not collect his bin if it was filled to the extent that the lid will not close and they would not collect waste left beside his bin. Following our enquiries, the council advised that the 0845 number on the leaflet offers them a range of benefits including allowing them to deal more efficiently with calls and that it is charged at a local rate from a BT landline. They said that they could not include all contact details and a postal address due to limitations of space on the leaflet and advised us of the various ‘no cost’ ways to contact them. They said that individuals could find full contact details in the ‘guide to council services and how to contact us’ publication which is delivered annually to households. In response to the issue of bin and waste uplift, the council said that they did not uplift open bins or waste left beside bins for health and safety reasons. They explained that moving overloaded bins and handling bags of rubbish left beside the bins increased the risk of staff injury. Although the complainant in this case was unhappy about collection  arrangements and the leaflet, we had to explain that decisions about services are taken at the council’s discretion. The council are entitled to decide what information to include on their leaflets and they are also entitled to decide the most appropriate way in which to collect the refuse in their area. In response to our enquiries, the council explained their reasons in full. The fact that Mr C disagrees with the council’s decisions does not

Ms C lived in a three-bedroomed council house with her adult daughter. Ms C told the council that she was getting married and intended to move. She asked if the tenancy could pass to her daughter, Ms A. A council officer visited and gave Ms C a change of tenancy form and housing application for Ms A, which were  completed.  Ms C was told that it was unlikely Ms A would be allowed to take on the tenancy as the house was a family home and she was a single person, but that Ms A could apply for housing on her own behalf. Ms C said she asked for, and received, confirmation that Ms A would, at no point, become homeless. Almost immediately after this, the council wrote to Ms C refusing the application to transfer the tenancy. They said that they were not required to provide Ms A with alternative accommodation. They told Ms C to vacate the house within 28 days. Ms C wrote to the council with several questions about this. The deadline by which she was to leave the property was about two weeks later, and she asked for a response before she left. She did not get one, and wrote twice again after leaving. She received a detailed response to her letter about six weeks after moving out. This said that the council now regarded Ms A as 'statutory homeless' and they would make an offer of accommodation as properties became available. Ms A was by then staying with friends, but was offered a property within a couple of months. We found that it was unreasonable of the council not to respond to Ms C’s letter until after she had vacated her property. The council told us they initially regarded her letter as an appeal against their decision and assumed Ms C would stay in the property until this was resolved. As she then vacated the property they assumed she had accepted the decision. However, we took the view that the initial letter was a request for information rather than an appeal and that in it Ms C pointed out the deadline concerned. We upheld both this complaint and the complaint tha