SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. C's neighbour was granted planning consent for an outbuilding in their garden. C noted that this space was to be used for commercial activities and complained that the council failed to comply with their own adopted and emerging Local Development Plan policies when reaching the decision to approve the application. C did not consider that their concerns in this regard had been addressed in the report of handling. C raised further concerns as to how the approved development would impact the neighbouring properties and the local area. C contended that the council failed to appropriately notify all of the affected neighbours. When objecting to the development, and in their subsequent complaint to the council, C noted that approving the application would allow the developer, or future owners of the residential property, to conduct other activities that could be disruptive. C did not consider that the council had taken adequate steps to consider this eventuality, or to limit the activities to those listed by the applicant. C raised a complaint with the council, but did not feel that all of their concerns were addressed. We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We found that the council were largely able to demonstrate that the planning application had been handled reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. However, the report of handling failed to address C's concerns about the potential for other activities taking place at the site in the future. Whilst we were satisfied that the council were entitled to reach the decision that they had, we were critical of them for failing to demonstrate that this issue had been considered prior to consent being granted and we made a recommendation in this regard. We also found that the council failed to address this, and another issue, in their responses to C's complaint. This was particularly concerning given how central these t

A solicitors firm complained on behalf of their client (Ms A) about the management of asbestos at a property she had rented from the council, and the time taken to provide her with a decant from the property. Ms A's former property was constructed with asbestos containing materials. The council had surveyed these materials and considered that they were of low risk. Ms A was made aware of this when she moved in to the property. Approximately one year later, Ms A said the council's contractor undertook works at the property, and she was concerned that they damaged the flooring. Ms A said she reported this to the council. Approximately three years later, Ms A contacted the council to raise concerns about the flooring at the property and the council arranged an inspection. The council did not consider that the asbestos containing materials presented any risk. However, a decision was subsequently made to decant Ms A to another property. The council said that they offered one property, however, Ms A did not wish to move there. A number of months passed before Ms A was decanted to another property. Regarding the management of asbestos at the property, we found that the council had conducted a survey that established this was low risk and in good condition. We found that the council followed their asbestos management plan. We found no evidence that the council's contractor carried out works inappropriately, and the council had no records of being contacted at that time. When Ms A raised concerns about the property approximately three years later, we found that the council organised an inspection, and relied on the professional expertise of their officer in concluding that there was no risk from the asbestos. We found this to be reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to the time taken to provide a decant, we noted the council's records indicated that one was initially offered, but Ms A did not wish to move. The council explai

Mr C was unhappy with the way the council handled a request for a non-material variation (NMV) to a planning application. He said that the council had withheld and delayed the online publication of documentation. The NMV report by the council had contained two inaccuracies, which the council had already identified and agreed. Mr C felt that the council had failed to have appropriate policies/procedures in place to prevent inaccuracies in the published report and that, because of the errors identified, they had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV. We sought independent planning advice. We found that there was no statutory obligation on the council to publish these documents. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We found that it did not appear that appropriate cross-checking had occurred in this case. We were concerned that the system of checks put in place in part to identify errors had failed on this occasion. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV due to the factual errors in the report. However, given that the council had already acknowledged the errors, apologised and discussed the matter with the planning officer concerned, and that the errors in the report did not lead us to question the soundness of the council's overall decision, we did not make further recommendations.

Mr C reported problems with the behaviour of his neighbour, who is a private tenant, including a number of reports of noise nuisance, verbally abusive behaviour and other anti-social behaviour. Mr C wanted the council to take steps to address his concerns with his neighbour and his neighbour's landlord, who he had also contacted directly. Council wardens attended following reports but concluded there was not sufficient evidence of noise or other nuisance to take further action. The council made a number of attempts to resolve the situation with preventative measures but these were not successful. As matters escalated, the council met with Mr C and the landlord but Mr C continued to experience behaviour from his neighbour that caused him distress. Mr C complained to the council about their lack of action and a number of specific concerns about his interactions with council staff. The council responded to his specific concerns. Mr C remained concerned that the council had not taken adequate steps to address the problems he was experiencing and complained to our office. Our investigation considered the statutory duty placed on the council to act, as well as the council's own procedures. We found that, in the absence of evidence of serious anti-social behaviour, the council had no duty to act. We also considered that the council's decision (that the evidence they had about the behaviour of Mr C's neighbour did not give them grounds for further action) was a reasonable one. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605670 as a PDF (11.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them. Over a number of years, Mr C was involved with a website forum which focused on local politics. Material was posted on the forum which in the view of the council was offensive. The council wrote to Mr C advising that they were taking action under their policy and that they would no longer respond to communication from Mr C, whether written or verbal. Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's actions, including that they should have issued a warning and that the council's restrictions had no connection with the allegations made against him. Having reviewed the council's Unacceptable Actions Policy, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council should have issued a formal warning to Mr C in relation to the conduct they were concerned about. We also found that the council should have provided Mr C with a more robust explanation of why they considered the restrictions on communication to have been necessary.

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their anti-bullying policies when they were informed of incidents of bullying against his son. In particular, Mr C was concerned about an incident, which occurred in early 2015, which was not dealt with as an incident of bullying. He was also concerned that the council failed to deal with previous incidents of bullying appropriately. The council's investigation found no evidence of earlier incidents of bullying which were not properly dealt with at the time. They did, however, acknowledge that the incident which occurred in early 2015 should have been handled differently and in line with their anti-bullying policy. Mr C was not happy with the council's response and he approached our office. We noted previous incidents recorded by the council but, as Mr C had not provided any evidence or detail of previous incidents, we could not conclude that there were other instances which the council had failed to record. We agreed with the council that they had failed to deal with the incident in early 2015 in line with their anti-bullying policy and, as a result, we upheld the complaint. We found that the steps taken by the council following their review of the complaint were appropriate and comprehensive, and we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201407841 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to assess a planning application for a house on neighbouring land correctly and consistently with previous decisions taken, and that they delayed in making relevant drawings available on their online planning portal. We also investigated Mr C's complaint that he was not given an adequate opportunity to provide further information in support of his complaint under the council's complaints procedure. Our investigation found that there were some areas where Mr C's complaint about the assessment of the planning application were justified, particularly in relation to the accuracy of the planning officer's report to committee. However, there was no evidence of fault in the way the planning application was handled, and this was consistent with previous decisions about the site. We also concluded that the council's explanation about timescales for uploading information to their portal was reasonable, and we did not support Mr C's complaint of delay. When we investigated how the council had handled Mr C's complaint, we found that they had complied with their procedure. They had made it clear to him that there was an approaching deadline, and we considered it would have been reasonable for Mr C to contact the council to seek more time to provide information, if necessary. Related reading View Decision Report 201303345 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council had failed to adequately consider Mr A's request for a disabled person's parking bay. We found that the council had adequately considered Mr A's application and had considered both his own and his wife's medical circumstances. The decision to refuse the application because a disabled person's parking bay had already been installed at the rear of Mr A's property was a decision that the council were entitled to take. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. That said, Mr C also complained about how Mr A had been notified of the decision on his application. The council's process for applications for a disabled person's parking bay clearly states that the council should advise the applicant in writing that either the request has been forwarded to the roads service for consideration or that the applicant does not meet the criteria. The council had referred Mr A's application to their roads service for consideration, but they had failed to notify Mr A of this in writing in line with their process. The council had then phoned Mr A to tell him that they had refused his application, but there was subsequently some confusion for both Mr A and the council about whether a decision had in fact been made. In view of this, we upheld this complaint.

Mrs C complained that, following a flood caused by a burst pipe in an upstairs owner-occupied property, the council delayed in moving her and her family to suitable alternative emergency accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. She was also unhappy that a member of staff had ended a phone call, accusing her and her husband of using inappropriate language. She was also dissatisfied when the council told her that her refusal to lift the laminate flooring in her home had caused the drying process to take substantially longer and resulted in additional damage. We considered the points she had raised, and found that the council had offered suitable wheelchair-accessible temporary bed and breakfast accommodation on the day of the flood. We noted that the council did not consider that moving house was necessary but had continued to offer temporary bed and breakfast accommodation which Mrs C and her husband refused as being unsuitable, in part because the family pet could not be accommodated. We also noted that Mrs C had initially refused (partly on the basis of advice from their insurers) to agree to the laminate flooring being lifted, and that the council's surveyors were of the view that the delay in lifting the laminate flooring had caused water to filter into the walls and cause additional damage. The council's policy on laminate flooring places responsibility for the lifting and replacement of laminate flooring with the tenant. Finally, although we were unable to determine exactly what was said in the phone call when Mrs C and her husband were accused of using inappropriate language, we did review the council's unacceptable actions policy which gives staff the authority to end calls where they consider the language being used is not appropriate. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407345 as a PDF (11.5 KB) Updated: Mar

Mrs C complained to the council that she had been forced into a meeting at the end of the school day to discuss her daughter's homework, when she was anxious about collecting another of her children from a different school. She alleged that staff were intimidating and behaved unprofessionally. She also complained about how the school communicated with her. She was dissatisfied with the response she received and complained that her complaints had not been adequately and seriously addressed. Our investigation considered the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and the school, and the council's complaints handling procedure and records of investigation. We found that the council had inappropriately handled her complaint as a first stage in their procedure when more detailed investigation was required of the serious complaints made. There was no evidence that staff had behaved in the way Mrs C alleged and a second investigation addressed the points she had made more comprehensively. The council's final response identified some short-comings in communication and the timings of approach to Mrs C at the end of the school day and we upheld her complaint about how the council had dealt with her complaint.

When Mr C bought his home, the road outside had a number of speed cushions to slow down traffic. Some years later, the council decided that the road needed to be resurfaced. When they checked the condition of the speed cushions, they found that these had deteriorated and could not be reused. In the months immediately following the resurfacing, temporary vehicle activated speed signs were installed, and speeds and traffic volumes were monitored. The council then consulted on the re-introduction of traffic calming measures, but found that there was significant opposition to their specific proposals. Knowing the range of public opinion, senior roads officers met with local councillors and agreed a revised scheme with fewer speed cushions. At the time, they obtained legal advice that they did not need to consult again on the revised proposals, and the new traffic calming measures were installed. Mr C was not living in the property when this happened, and when he returned he found that traffic volume and speeds had increased, and there was excessive noise in his home. He complained to the council about the changes, and made various information requests. He then complained to us that the council had not taken the appropriate steps when considering and implementing the new measures, and had failed to act on collected data which indicated that the measures that they had put in place were inadequate. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as our investigation found that the consultation was extensive and appropriate. We also found that since the measures were introduced, council officers had examined the results of two further monitoring exercises and found no reason to amend the scheme. This was a decision for them to take as professionals, and not something that we could consider where there was no evidence of maladministration in the taking of the decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201300924 as a PDF (11.52 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C purchased a property, which proved to have significant structural problems in an extension completed by the previous owner. Mr C made a number of complaints about the completion certificate process, and said that the council had failed to ensure that the local authority building surveyor who verified the certificate had carried out his role properly. He was also unhappy with the council's complaints handling. Mr C said that the building warrant for the property had expired, and no extension had been sought before the certificate of completion was granted. He believed that this meant that the building regulations in force at the time of the inspection should have applied to the property. He said that this would have required a different type of electrical certificate to that presented to the surveyor, and would have resulted in significant problems with the electrics being identified. Mr C thought that the council would not then have approved the completion certificate, and he would not have purchased the property. Our investigation found that the local authority did not have responsibility to carry out anything more than a non-disruptive survey, and that responsibility for ensuring that work on the property matched that described on the building warrant lay with the individual submitting the completion certificate. We also found that the grounds for refusing an extension to a building warrant only apply where little or no construction has taken place. In this case the building was completed within the timeframe of the warrant and the completion certificate applied for, so there would have been no grounds for refusal. We also found that the extent of a non-disruptive survey was a matter of professional judgement for the building surveyor. Although Mr C disputed the professionalism of his work, this was not a matter that we could consider. We also found that the surveyor was only required to carry out a 'reasonable enquiry' with regard to specialist matt

Mr C made an application to the Scottish Welfare Fund for a crisis grant but the council refused this because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C asked for the decision to be reviewed, because he was waiting for his benefit application to be processed. After the review, the council told Mr C the original decision would not change and no award would be made. Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his application. In particular, he said the council's communication was poor; there was an unreasonable delay in processing his second tier review (a further review by a panel who are not part of the Fund team); and the guidance was not followed properly. We examined what happened in Mr C's case against the relevant guidance from the Scottish Government, and upheld his complaints. Our investigation found that the council did not explain the evidence that Mr C should put forward when requesting a review, and had not responded to the concerns he raised in his request for a review. The guidance says the applicant should understand why a decision has been made. Mr C was also not told when the panel would consider his second tier review or about his right to see the documents that would be considered. The council also accepted there was a delay in processing that review. They said his letter requesting this was misfiled into his housing benefit file. Finally, the council told Mr C his application was refused because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. However, the guidance clearly states the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant is the severity of the applicant's situation.

Ms C raised her concern about the consultation carried out by the council before they installed street furniture, in particular a bench opposite her home. She said that they unreasonably failed to consult with the appropriate council departments, the community council and residents affected, and that they had misled her when responding to her representations about this. Ms C maintained that there had been no consultation. During our investigation we found that the council were not required to consult with any groups when deciding to locate street furniture. In this case, however, there had been discussions between relevant council officers and the council also maintained that there was consultation with the community council and further discussions with members of the community council. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's views and did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201203029 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council failed to notify her when her neighbour applied for an amendment to planning permission for an extension. She also said that the council issued a completion certificate for the extension although the works were not completed, and had failed to rectify this. Mrs C also complained that the council delayed in investigating her complaint and did not investigate it properly. Our investigation found that the council granted the original planning permission in 2010, and that they had already apologised to Mrs C for failing to notify her about this. We also found that the planning permission had never been amended and so there had not been any further fault in providing Mrs C with neighbour notification. The work that had not been completed in accordance with the approved plans was to paint the wall facing Mrs C's garden. We found that the building warrant granted for the works said that the wall was to be finished in render but, as the colour of the render was not relevant to the warrant, the fact that it was not painted did not impact on the granting of a completion certificate. The council had in fact tried to negotiate with Mrs C's neighbour to have her paint the wall, and although she had said she would do so, this had not yet happened. Any formal action (enforcement) is a matter for the council's discretion. The council had decided, as they were entitled to do, that they could not justify taking formal action to enforce a colour change on a wall that was not open to public view, so we did not criticise their actions on this. We did, however, make recommendations about their notification process and about how they take the matter forward. We found that there was a slight delay by the council in responding to the complaint, but that they had already explained the reason for this and apologised to Mrs C. We did not find any other faults in their complaints handling.

Mr C applied, through architects, for planning consent to demolish a small bungalow and to build a substantial two storey house. There were no objections to his application and it was determined under the council's scheme of delegation (where the decision is taken by planning officers rather than by a committee of the council). Although a supportive engineer's report and landscape report were provided, the planning case officer had reservations about recommending approval. There was also a replacement local plan being discussed. Because of this, the officer suggested three times that the application should be withdrawn and resubmitted. Mr C, however, insisted on continuing with the application. When officers decided to refuse planning permission, Mr C engaged a planning consultant and requested that the decision be reviewed. The local review board considered this and, by a narrow majority, upheld the officers' decision. Mr C complained to the council about the handling of the application and the review process. Mr C then made seven complaints to us detailing a large number of points that he wished considered. Four of the seven complaints were about his concerns that there were deficiencies in the processing of the initial application and the report of handling; two were about the administration and conduct of the local review board; and the seventh was about the council's handling of his complaint. We upheld two of the complaints - about the processing of the initial application and inadequacies in the report of handling. We did not, however, find that the officers unreasonably withheld consent, and we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Our investigation found that, in large measure, identical issues had been set out in the planning consultant's very detailed submission to the local review board. We did not uphold Mr C's other complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201002860 as a PDF (11.55 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

Mrs C complained to the council about aspects of their reasoning in deciding to give planning permission for a development on property adjoining her own. After the council responded to her, she complained to us that their responses had unreasonably ignored some of the specific issues she raised. We investigated the complaint, but considered that the council's responses had reasonably provided all of the information or clarification she had requested. Related reading View Decision Report 201202568 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for two wind turbines which were proposed to be built some distance from their rural farmhouse. The application was submitted in 2011 following two previous applications, one of which had been withdrawn and one of which had been refused. Mr and Mrs C were particularly concerned about the adequacy of acoustic reports submitted by the applicant's agents and had sent the council several letters about this, making representations about their concerns. They complained to us that the council did not reasonably respond to their enquiries about noise and other issues. They were also unhappy with a report about the application submitted to the council's committee, because they felt that the methods the council had used to assess the impact of noise from the proposed development on their property had not been reasonable. Our investigation did not uphold either complaint. However, we noted that when Mr and Mrs C complained of not getting a response to points raised in their representations, a senior planning officer told them that it was not possible for the council to correspond because of the volume of objections received from third parties and because responding to third parties might be construed as prejudicial to the council's later consideration of an application. Mr and Mrs C had not been told this when their representations were acknowledged, so we made a recommendation to the council about this. In respect of the second complaint, we found that the council's report was full and balanced and the consideration of whether Mr and Mrs C's property would be affected by noise was in line with central government advice.

Mr C applied for planning permission to install solar panels in the grounds of his property, which was a Grade B listed building. He told us that he had intended to take advantage of the government's feed-in tariff scheme, which paid energy producers for excess electricity that was returned to the national grid. The council approved the planning application, but applied a condition requiring him to dismantle the equipment after ten years. Whilst they advised him that he could reapply after ten years to extend the permission, Mr C was reluctant to proceed on this basis. He asked for the condition to be reviewed by the planning Local Review Body (LRB), noting that the feed-in tariff scheme was intended to run over a 25 year period. The LRB concluded that a 25 year time-limited condition would be more appropriate and granted planning permission on that basis. However, while Mr C was pursuing his appeal with the LRB, the government changed the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme, making his solar panels financially non-viable. Mr C complained that the council applied a 'catch-all' condition, normally used for wind turbines, to his planned solar panel installation. He also complained that they should have made him aware of the ten year condition at the pre-application stage, as it is applied consistently across all renewable energy developments. Mr C felt that the council should have applied conditions that reflected the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme. Our investigation confirmed that Mr C had attended a pre-application meeting with the council's planning officer. Whilst the planning officer said that she had told Mr C about the ten year condition, there was no record of this and we were unable to confirm what information, if any, was provided. We found that it would have been good practice for the council to provide details of any standard conditions at the pre-application stage, but noted that there was no statutory obligation for them to do so. We learne

Mr C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the condition of the road outside his home. He said there was an unreasonable delay between him making his complaint and repairs to the road being carried out. He also said he was unhappy about the council's response to his subsequent complaint about the standard of the repairs. In addition, Mr C complained that the council did not deal with his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure. Our investigation found evidence showing that the council carried out the repairs 12 working days after Mr C complained, and ten working days after the defects were inspected. As the target repair time which the council aim to achieve is 8.5 days, we considered that carrying out the repair 1.5 days outwith the target was not unreasonable. We also obtained evidence which showed that the council inspected the repairs and determined that they were carried out appropriately. The fact that Mr C did not agree with this was not something we could look into as it is not our role to assess the standard of council repairs. As the evidence showed that the council carried out the repairs within a reasonable time and responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about the standard of the repairs, we did not uphold his complaint. However, we were concerned that in their response, the council seemed uncertain about the target timescale for repair. Their initial response was silent on this point, they then said the target was 28 working days and finally concluded it was 8.5 working days. We were also concerned that their procedure did not appear to accurately reflect revised target timescales for urgent repairs. In addition, we were concerned that the council did not appear to have taken steps to look into Mr C's complaint that previously reported faults had not been repaired, or were not repaired properly. We accepted that the council are limited in terms of what they can do due to

Ms C had a number of complaints about the way the council had handled a planning application for a housing development on a site in her village. We did not uphold any of the complaints. Ms C said that the council had failed to notify the local community council that the developer had objected to the site's green belt status during the consideration of the new local plan. She said it was unreasonable that this was only drawn to the community council's attention when the developer provided them with proposed plans around three years later. However, we found that there was no obligation on the council to provide notification to community councils about every objection made which was contrary to their position, and that in fact it would be disproportionate to expect them to do so. Ms C also complained that the council had improperly considered roads issues, in particular that junction spacing and visibility at the entrance to the new development were not within safe standards. We found that the guidelines Ms C had referred to did not have to be adhered to rigidly, and that the roads officers who had assessed the site had properly assessed all relevant factors when reaching a decision about junction spacing and visibility. Ms C was also concerned that the two storey housing proposed was not in keeping with surrounding houses in the area. However, we found no evidence that the proposals were unreasonable. Ms C had also complained about the calculation of housing density, based on the size of the site but again we found this to be reasonable. Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not adequately ensured that the developers adhered to the planning brief prepared by the council. However, we again found that such documents are prepared as guidance only, and do not need to be adhered to rigidly. Related reading View Decision Report 201102025 as a PDF (11.49 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's neighbours installed security lighting, which impacted on the previously dark rear of his property. Following contact from the council, his neighbours made some adjustments but Mr C considered that the effect of the light on his bedroom remained unacceptable and constituted a statutory nuisance. He said it interfered with his health and sleeping pattern, and that the council had misinterpreted or ignored relevant guidance and had not taken into account the views of other independent people who had viewed the lights. When the council declined to take further action he complained but remained dissatisfied with their response and complained to SPSO. He made a number of complaints to us based on to his belief that the light constituted a statutory nuisance. He also said that the council failed to deal with his complaint about the matter appropriately, as they did not view the problem at later stages of the complaints process and did not deal with his complaint in terms of the complaints procedure. We did not uphold his complaints about the issue of establishing whether the lights were a statutory nuisance, as it was clear that the council had taken appropriate steps to reach their decision on this. Mr C disagrees with the decision but he has the option of taking the matter to the sheriff if he considers the council are wrong in respect of the statutory nuisance. In relation to the other element of his complaint, it was clear to us that the council had responded reasonably. Related reading View Decision Report 201004662 as a PDF (14.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council discriminated against him by failing to provide a service (cutting and maintenance of a grass verge). The council had told Mr C that they had risk assessed the area and found that the verge could not be attended to without closing the road. Mr C disagreed and said he had provided examples of other similar locations that the council did maintain. Mr C complained that the status of the area he lived in had changed to his detriment because a restricted service was being provided. He also complained that, after questioning policy differences between council departments, he had asked for copies of the council's policies on rural and urban areas but had not received these. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. There was no evidence that the council had not investigated his claims about discrimination. Further, there was nothing to show that the status of the area where Mr C lives had changed, so his claim about a change in service provision was not related to a change in status. The council also clarified that they have no policy that differentiates between urban and rural areas so there was no document available to send to Mr C. Related reading View Decision Report 201004650 as a PDF (14.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018