SPSO Individual Decisions

Mrs C complained that the council's communication with her regarding the need for planning permission was unreasonable. Mrs C suggested that the council had provided incorrect planning advice and later unreasonably changed their view on whether an application for a change of use was required, causing a delay to when Mrs C's business could commence trading. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had adequate information at an early point to reasonably conclude that it would be necessary for Mrs C to require a change of use planning permission. The initial advice indicated that planning permission was not required unless the anticipated level of sales and activity increased. The council provided inconsistent information and rationales to support their decisions. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C lived adjacent to a council house. There was water ingress into Mr C's property, and his roofing contractor felt that a chimney he shared with the council property was part of the problem. Mr C contacted the council, and he said they told him to take no action to repair the chimney, and that they would inspect their property and sort the problem. The council denied giving Mr C this advice, and it took them a year to gain access to their property and inspect it. The council decided they would not arrange removal of the chimney. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably told him to take no action to repair the chimney and that they unreasonably decided not to remove it. We found that Mr C and a council officer had differing recollections of what was said about what the council would do. As there was no independent evidence from anyone who witnessed the conversation, we could not prove exactly what was said. We also found that, although Mr C disagreed with the councils' decision not to arrange removal of the chimney, there was no obligation on the council to arrange for removal, and they explained clearly to Mr C why they would not do so. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council delayed in gaining access to their property to inspect for water ingress. We found that the delay was unreasonable and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As the council apologised to Mr C for the delay, we made no recommendations. However, we did feed back to the council about seeking to avoid such delays in future. Related reading View Decision Report 201707834 as a PDF (24.01 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mr C, an MSP's caseworker, complained on behalf of a constituent (Mr A) that the council failed to appropriately investigate Mr A's reports of noise. Mr A said that renovation works being carried out by his next door neighbour were causing him severe disruption. The council had initially served an abatement notice, setting out legal time restrictions for the hours the works could be carried out. However, Mr A said that he had repeatedly reported that works were ongoing outwith the specified hours and that the council had been unable to attend to witness the noise and enforce the notice. By the time that the council were able to attend out-of-hours, the works were mostly complete, with remaining works taking place during the specified hours. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council had no formal policy or procedure relating to the investigation of noise and enforcement of abatement notices. The council said that a policy would not cover the complexity of noise complaints and would restrict their staff from using their professional judgement. The adviser noted that Scottish Government guidance suggests that local authorities should have clear policies and procedures in place to govern the investigation of noise nuisance. The guidance also suggested that those policies and procedures should set out clear timescales for response, along with details for out-of-hours provision. We considered that the council's reason for not having these policies and procedures was unreasonable. We also found that the council had taken too long to attend and investigate Mr A's ongoing reports of noise, both during and outwith normal working hours. Finally, we noted that the were a number of documents missing including records of phone calls made by Mr A and details of the site visits the council did carry out. For these reasons, we considered that the council failed to appropriately investigate Mr A's reports of noise and uphel

Ms C submitted a housing application for relocation to a different property. She listed a number of areas where she would be prepared to live. She identified a property in her preferred area which was empty and expressed her interest in it to the council. She was told that the property was occupied, however, her interest in it was noted by the council. Ms C was subsequently contacted by the council regarding a second property in another area. She went to view it, but later declined it. In the meantime, Ms C had learned that the first property had become available. However, she was told that as she had 'pre-accepted' the other property she had been taken off the allocations list pending her viewing of the other property. The original property was allocated to another applicant. Ms C complained that she had never 'pre-accepted' the other property and had only agreed to view it. She also complained that her note of interest in the first property was not taken into account and the council provided her with inaccurate information regarding her status on the allocations list. We found that although inaccurate information was issued to Ms C, this was then rectified appropriately. With regard to the allocations process, we accepted the council’s position that a 'pre-acceptance' process is applied to all applicants. This means that one applicant cannot be offered two properties simultaneously, and ensures a fair and efficient process. We found that, whilst Ms C was temporarily taken off the allocations list while she considered the other property, this did not affect her chances of securing the first property. The first property was categorised for allocation to applicants with a priority need for which Ms C did not qualify. Whilst some of the council’s communication could have been clearer, we were satisfied that Ms C’s application was considered appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201405213 as a PDF (11.45 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C has since 2002 owned a flat and teashop in a three storey building. There are takeaway premises on the ground floor. Mr C first complained to the council about smells from the takeaway premises in 2003. The council suspended taking formal action about this while Mr C pursued the takeaway owner for the cost of mutual repairs to the building. Mr C went back to the council in 2006, but formal action was again hampered by a dispute between the owner and occupant of the takeaway premises, errors by the council, and by Mr C in 2009 physically preventing the replacement of the existing external flue. Mr C complained to the council in 2009 and contacted our office two months later. The council carried out an investigation of Mr C’s complaint, which in 2010 resulted in the issue of a lengthy report by a senior legal officer, who found evidence of shortcomings by council officers. Mr C did not approach us again until 2011. We told Mr C that, in respect of more recent issues, he needed to complete the council's complaints procedure. He then did so and, when he came back to us, complained that the council failed to take appropriate action to deal with noxious fumes entering his property despite serving several notices on the owners and occupants of the takeaway premises. Given Mr C's contact with us in July 2009, we considered it appropriate to limit our investigation to what happened after April 2010. Mr C's complaint to us was made immediately after the council issued a fresh abatement notice (an order to put right the cause of nuisance) in November 2011 and the then current occupant had been evicted. The current owner carried out major internal refurbishment and installed a vapour barrier and an improved external flue. Senior council officials who visited in February 2012 confirmed that the owner had effectively complied with the abatement notice. Since the refurbished takeaway re-opened in late February 2012 there had been no complaints. We decided that the council had

Ms C was unhappy with the council’s complaints handling when she complained to them about a social work related matter. She complained that there were delays in the complaints process; that she was not given information about the process, and that there was a delay in providing her with a report from a Complaints Review Committee (CRC). Our investigation found that when Ms C lodged a formal complaint, the council failed to respond appropriately. They delayed in responding, and in telling her the outcome of the CRC (which the council told us was due to a particular member of staff not being available). We also found that they twice failed to tell Ms C that she could take her concerns to a CRC, despite this being part of the statutory social work complaints process.

Mr A complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action to ensure that a developer provided proper drainage for a housing development to the rear of his property. Mr A had first complained to the council in 2007 about his property receiving water run-off from the housing development. He stated that his back garden and driveway were often unusable because of water coming down and that proper drainage had not been installed during the construction of the homes on the development. After completing the council's complaints process, Mr A complained to the Ombudsman in 2011. He said that the water limited the use of his garden and created a constant hazard, particularly in winter. He wanted the council to accept responsibility for the problem, and to install a drain along the rear of his property. We found that there was no issue of non-compliance in relation to the planning permission. Problems with drainage had been identified and the site had passed drainage tests at inspection and received a Certificate of Completion in July 2006. The council did not use its power as roads authority to take action against property owners adjacent to the road in relation to the water run-off, and we found this position to be reasonable. Finally, the council had installed drainage in properties next to the complainant's (acting as landlord since they were the owners of these properties). The council had offered to connect this drainage to Mr A's development, but stipulated that this would have to be at his own cost. We found this position to be reasonable, and as a result, did not uphold any aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 200904203 as a PDF (14.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018