SPSO Individual Decisions

C owns a holiday let in a conservation area. The adjacent, terraced property was demolished but not rebuilt, leaving an unsightly gap. The site is now for sale, causing uncertainty and delays. They complained that this had been allowed to happen, citing financial loss. C advised that the council had failed to enforce the conditions of the Conservation Area Consent, as demolition had occurred without the required construction contracts being in place. They noted that there were no provisions to ensure effective communication, property protection, or insurance. They stated that the council’s departments lacked coordination, noting that Building Standards had been present during demolition but had not alerted Planning and the demolition had not been stopped. The council agreed that although the Planning Consent conditions had been met, the Conservation Conditions had not been met. They stated that the applicant was responsible for compliance with the conditions of the Conservation Area Consent. They acknowledged that they could have reminded the applicants and would provide training to planning officers. However, there was no statutory requirement to do so. They were now taking appropriate enforcement action as a breach had occurred. They advised they had fulfilled their statutory requirements in terms of communication and advertisement and that it was not within their remit to stipulate communication, protection or insurance between neighbours. They added that Building Standards do not have a remit to regulate compliance with planning conditions. We took independent advice from a planning consultant. We found that it was the applicant’s responsibility to comply with conservation conditions, as this was stated in bold on the Conservation Area Consent decision notice. We considered that it was not up to Building Standards to alert Planning to the demolition. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint as we did not consider that maladministration had been demonstrated. R

C complained to the council that their teenage child (A)'s school had not taken reasonable action following the report of an assault on A and a report of bullying. A reported continued bullying behaviour early in the next term and measures were put in place, such as allowing A to leave classes early. Just over a week later A was involved in a pre-arranged fight with another pupil close to school grounds in school time. The council’s investigation did not uphold C’s complaints about the action taken following the report of the assault and bullying. C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with SPSO. We found that the school did not follow their Anti-Bullying Policy following the assault on A. They did not advise C of their decision that the school could take no further action regarding the reports of bullying as there was no concrete evidence of this, and they were imprecise in how they described contact with other parents/carers to C. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow relevant processes and procedures in managing and responding to bullying behaviour experienced by C's child (A). C also complained about the way the council handled their complaint. In response to C's complaint, the council confirmed that the school had taken appropriate action in responding to incidents and had investigated C's complaint reasonably. C was dissatisfied with the council’s responses and brought their complaint to this office. We found that the school had not consistently recorded incidents reported in pastoral and other recording systems. Therefore, it was not possible to determine with any certainty what actions the school took in response to concerns and the impact those actions were having both on A and any perpetrators of bullying behaviour. We also found that the council failed to reasonably investigate aspects of C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld C's complaints.

C complained that the council had failed to address excessive noise from a recreational area near their home. We found that the council had taken appropriate action in relation to C’s complaints of noise nuisance and did not uphold C’s complaint. However, we did provide the council with feedback on ensuring they carry out visits within a reasonable timeframe where they have agreed to do so, or contact the customer to explain why they are unable to do so. C also complained about the council’s handling of their complaint. C raised a complaint with the council about the high levels of noise from the recreational area. The council responded on the same day saying that they could not consider noise nuisance under their complaints procedure as the nuisance was not being caused by the council or by any maladministration on behalf of the council. C was advised to engage with the appropriate council service regarding monitoring and establishing the noise nuisance and was signposted to the SPSO if C felt they were not responding to what they considered to be complaints. We found that the council unreasonably failed to act in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure by refusing to further respond to C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

C complained about their housing. C had moved into the property because they were downsizing from their previous home. The property they moved into had been purchased by the council from its owner as part of a ‘buy back’ scheme for council properties. C complained of persistent damp and mould within the property that was causing them significant health problems. C was offered alternative properties by the council but C rejected them on the basis that they were unsuitable. We found that extensive works had been carried out to the property prior to C moving in. We also found that, whilst C disputed the suitability of the alternative properties they were offered, the council had followed the correct procedure in assessing C’s medical needs and the properties offered to C. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of C’s complaint. In relation to C’s reports of damp and mould, we found that these issues were investigated. However, the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond, given that they were aware of the health issues being experienced by the family. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained to the council about a local access route that was closed off by the landowner. C said that the route had historically been asserted as a right of way (RoW) and a planning condition imposed to protect it. In response, the council declined to take action to re-open the route. They explained that, notwithstanding the route being referred to a RoW in the planning process, the route had not been asserted and had no legal status. They explained that the planning condition (to provide an upgraded alternative route through the site) had also been removed on appeal. However, in a further response, the council stated that the condition remained valid but was found to be ultra vires and unenforceable as the alternative route was not in the landowner’s ownership. They declined to take any further action on the basis a suitable alternative route, in their ownership, had been provided and remained open. C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action to keep open the claimed RoW. C said that the council had been very clear in the planning process that the claimed route had been established as a RoW, and Scotways had also considered the route had met the criteria to be a RoW. They said that the council had also failed to take reasonable enforcement action in respect of the planning condition and had provided contradictory responses to their complaints about these matters. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had provided a reasonable explanation regarding the status of the route but highlighted that it would be for the courts to determine the status of a disputed RoW if C disagreed with the council’s position. We also found that the decision not to take any further action to keep the claimed route open was a discretionary matter which the council were entitled to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. However, we provided feedback to the council in respect of the

C complained that the council failed to obtain planning permission for the extension of a playpark. C said the development of the expanded playpark area required planning permission as it was a material change and was also a bad neighbour development. We found that the council did not misinterpret law or policy and had proper regard for material considerations. Their decision not to take enforcement action in relation to a slide that required planning permission was also legitimate and took account of material considerations. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint. However, we considered that it would have been helpful if the council's planning services had been involved at an earlier stage in the process and not only at the point that residents started raising concerns. This may have helped to identify issues in relation to the height of the slide at an earlier stage. We provided feedback to the council about this. Related reading View Decision Report 202008175 as a PDF (24.22 KB) Updated: November 22, 2023

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about the council's investigation of incidents of anti-social behaviour from A's neighbour. C said the council failed to carry out a reasonable investigation which had an adverse effect on A's mental and physical health. The council's initial response was very brief and simply stated that they had looked over the case notes and spoken with the staff involved. The council did not uphold C's complaint and C brought their complaint to this office. We sent the complaint back to the council and asked them to provide a more full response. The council's second response was more detailed, gave a chronology of events and summarised the action they took each time C, A (or their neighbour) reported an incident. However, it still only gave brief details of the actions taken by the council after each report and failed to evidence that this was in line with their anti-social behaviour policies. After further enquiries the council provided evidence of the policy and procedure they followed. We found that there were a series of administrative errors on the part of the council and that council records contained inappropriate speculation about A's health and its possible impact on their complaint. Although these administrative failings undermined C's confidence in the council's actions, we found that the council did respond to the complaints of anti-social behaviour in line with their own procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint but provided the council with feedback. Related reading View Decision Report 202107139 as a PDF (24.51 KB) Updated: October 18, 2023

C complained about Fife council's handling of a complaint that they made regarding an incident involving their child (A) at their school. C said that A was a victim of sexual assault and harassment during a playground game in which another child forced A to kiss them, touched A inappropriately and encouraged other children to chase and catch A. C said that, as a result of this, A felt unsafe and was unable to return to the school. C complained that the council’s staff failed to carry out a reasonable investigation, including that A’s teacher’s account of events was accepted without any further scrutiny. We found that the council’s initial investigation of concerns raised verbally by C was reasonable and highlighted the school staff’s conclusion at that time that this had been a matter that could be dealt with in the classroom. When new information became available indicating that the events may have been more serious, the council left the investigation to the police. Following completion of the police’s investigation, the council issued their response to the complaint, which reflected the situation as they understood it. However, C’s complaint clearly included mention of their concern that a few weeks before the specific incident complained of they had reported to the teacher that a similar incident had occurred. Due to the lack of records available of the council’s investigation it is unclear whether, or to what extent, that these concerns were taken into account or investigated. These concerns were not responded to by the council. It is unclear, therefore, whether the council reasonably considered the implications of the teacher having been aware of potentially inappropriate behaviour taking place among the children for a few weeks before the reports that led to action being taken. These implications may have included what weight the school and council gave to the teacher’s statements, whether evidence or corroboration should have been sought for when the t

C complained on behalf of their client (A). Following an incident at A’s home, A agreed with the council's Child Protection Team that their two children should be placed in the care of a relative. This was a voluntary placement under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. C emailed the council’s social work team to inform them that A would withdraw their consent to the placement if no progress was made in their case. A attended their youngest child’s school and attempted to take custody of their child, but was prevented from doing so by social workers and the child left in the custody of relatives. Later that day, A attended their relatives’ house and A was prevented from taking custody of the child. Social workers were not present, but police attended and then refused to intervene after speaking to the social workers. A then agreed to the voluntary placement again. C advised A that they should withdraw their youngest child from the placement and attend their school to collect them and C informed the social workers of this advice. In response, social workers obtained a Child Protection Order (CPO). C complained to the council that they had failed to respond to A’s wishes regarding the placement. The council did not identify any substantive failings. C complained that the council’s response was inadequate and inaccurate and that the council had failed to obtain a CPO timeously. We took independent advice from a children's social work adviser. We found that A had tried to end the voluntary placement twice and that A had been prevented from exercising their parental rights. We found that the council had failed to obtain a CPO timeously and that they had failed to adequately investigate or respond to C’s complaint. We upheld C’s complaint.

C complained about a financial assessment carried out in respect of their parent (A)'s, care costs. C complained that the council wrongly determined that in transferring the title to A's property to C three years previously, A had intentionally deprived themselves of capital to avoid paying residential care costs. C disagreed with the council’s decision to treat the value of the property as notional capital when calculating the costs that A owed. There followed extensive communication between the council, C and C's solicitor. According to C, A had no expectation of going into care when they transferred the property, or at any point in the future. C said that A was a very active, intelligent and healthy individual who had every intention of remaining in the same home for the rest of their life. Nor, as far as C was aware, had A had any thoughts of disposing of some of their assets to avoid paying for care in the future. Related reading View Decision Report 201909723 as a PDF (24.17 KB) Updated: July 20, 2022

C and B complained to the council about their child's (A) move to a residential placement under a section 25 arrangement (Children (Scotland) Act 1995). They said that the placement had been highly inappropriate and had not met A's complex needs. C and B further complained that they had felt pressurised into agreeing to the move and had been given inaccurate information by social workers about the resource. In response the council said that the placement had been made on an emergency basis and in good faith that it would meet A's needs. They disagreed that it had been highly inappropriate. Although at the time they had been unaware of the provider's personal search practices, they agreed as a result of the complaint to request this information from all residential providers moving forward. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to find the best possible resource to meet A's complex needs within the limited timeframe available. Although we agreed that the council should have been made aware of their provider's personal search practices, we concluded that the council had acted reasonably in terms of their communications with C and B regarding the suitability of the resource and the information given to them and found no evidence to support that C and B had been pressurised into agreeing to the move. As such, we did not uphold these aspects of the complaint. C and B further complained that the council had failed to explain to them that it had been their intention to move A to secure accommodation and social workers had relied on inaccurate health reporting to inform this decision. C and B explained that they had been invited to a meeting with social workers but had been unaware it would be to discuss secure measures. As such, they had been denied the opportunity to have legal representation to challenge the council's decision and to prevent the move. We were unable to reach a finding on what inform

C raised a number of concerns about the social work service provided by the council in relation to the contact between their child (A) and A's non-resident parent. At the time of the complaint, the social work service was responsible for managing contact between A and the non-resident parent. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. C firstly complained about the way the council acted in relation to concerns they raised about what was in A's best interest. We found that the council acted reasonably in relation to a number of the concerns C raised. However, we also found that there was a failure in one instance to carry out a risk assessment timeously. On balance, we upheld C's complaint. C also complained about the way the council handled a meeting that had been arranged to discuss A's contact arrangements. We did not identify failings in relation to this aspect of C's complaint and we did not uphold the complaint. Finally, we considered the council's handling of C's complaint. We found that the council's complaint response did not address a number of C's points of complaint and that it failed to include an apology for a service failing the council identified during their own investigation. We made recommendations in relation to complaint handling.

C complained about how the council handled and assessed a planning application. The planning application related to a proposal for an extension to an existing business premises and was approved by the council. C's own business premises are located nearby and C raised concerns about how the extension would impact their business and the local area more generally. In response to C's complaint, the council acknowledged there were some failings in how the application was assessed and omissions in the Report of Handling. However, they concluded the application would have still been approved even if there were no failings in how it was assessed. C complained that they did not think the council took appropriate action in response to the acknowledged failings and considered there to be other failings that the council did not identify in their stage 2 response. In addition to this, C complained about the council's sale of the land that the proposed extension is to be built on. In C's view, the sale of the land was not appropriately carried out by the council. In respect of the first aspect of C's complaint, we took advice from an independent adviser with a background in planning. The advice we received, and accepted, was that there were further shortcomings in the assessment of the application and the content of the Report of Handling that were not identified by the council. While a number of C's outstanding concerns related to disagreements with the council's decision, we considered there to be examples of the council either failing to appropriately consider certain matters or not recording them in sufficient detail in the Report of Handling. As such, we upheld this complaint. In respect of the second complaint, C was of the view that the land sold was classed as common good land and should not have been subject to sale. They also considered the council's sale of the land not to be in line with the European Commission's state aid rules. We concluded that the evide

C complained about the council's handling of a planning application submitted by their neighbour. The planning application was for a number of alterations to C's neighbour's property. C objected to the application, as they had a number of concerns about the proposed alterations, including what they considered to be inaccurate plans and information submitted by the neighbour. Despite C's objections, the council approved the planning application. C complained to the council about their handling and assessment of the application. They stated that there were inaccuracies within the Report of Handling and that the council had not addressed the points raised in C's objection appropriately. The council acknowledged that there were a number of failings in how they handled and assessed the planning application. However, they concluded that their decision on the application would have been the same had these failings not taken place. In C's complaint to us, they explained that they were not satisfied with the council's response and that the council should have taken further action in response to the aspects of the complaint they upheld. C also had further concerns about the council's handling of the application and the assessment that led to their decision. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council's stage 2 complaint response provided a reasonable explanation for why the decision to approve the planning application was appropriate. Furthermore, the council's decision-making was in line with relevant guidance and legislation. Although C disagreed with the council's decision on the planning application, we were satisfied that this was a decision the council were entitled to reach. However, we did identify one failing in respect of the application validation process that was not addressed in the council's response. In light of this, and the failings already identified by the council, we upheld this complaint. C also complained that the counci

C complained to us about the council, who they had rented a garage from for years. C was concerned that the council had not informed them of the presence of asbestos in the garage, which C only became aware of after repair works were carried out to the roof. We found that, although the council did not appear to have a legal duty to inform C, they had clear policies on asbestos which committed to '… doing all that is reasonably practicable to prevent exposure of its employees and others to airborne asbestos particulates.' Given this wide-ranging commitment, we considered that the council should have considered notifying C on sign-up, but there was no clear evidence of this. We also found that there was insufficient record of the initial inspection carried out after C reported the repair required to the roof. This made it difficult to assess whether asbestos containing material had been damaged (which could potentially pose a risk). In the absence of clear evidence that no such material was disturbed, we consider that the council should have notified C of the presence of asbestos when the repair was reported. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

C has two children, one of whom attends nursery and the other attends primary school. C complained that the school failed to communicate with them appropriately about their children's poor attendance and that they failed to correctly implement and follow their attendance policy. The council provided details of the supports they put in place to manage the children's attendance. We found that the school did not appear to have an up-to-date attendance policy in place as per the council's instructions. While the school took some appropriate action to address the children's poor attendance, some of these actions were delayed and were not documented. We also found that the school failed to respond to all of C's concerns in a timely manner, their communication with C overall was insufficient, and the council's response to C's complaint was inadequate as they failed to demonstrate that the attendance policy was followed, despite saying that it was. We upheld all of C's complaints.

Mr and Mrs C complained about the handling of a planning application submitted by a neighbour. They complained that the council had failed to allow an additional neighbour notification to enable comments to be submitted on new additional information submitted by the applicant; the council unreasonably circulated a report of handling to the appropriate planning committee which was inaccurate, and that elected members of the committee were provided with misleading information. They also complained that the council failed to adhere to its planning residential amenity protection guidelines, and finally that the council’s communication concerning the planning application was unreasonable. We took independent planning advice. We found that there had been no failure by the council in not providing an additional notification period as the further information provided by the applicant was not materially different from the information already provided. While we found that the report of handling was of an appropriate standard in this case, the council accepted that the information in the report of handling could have been clearer and had taken action to remind appropriate staff of the need for accuracy in reports of handling. We also found that there was no evidence that misleading statements were provided to the committee and that there was evidence that amenity protection had been taken into consideration. Finally, we found no evidence that the communication with Mr and Mrs C in relation to the planning application was unreasonable. We were satisfied that the planning application had been dealt with appropriately and in accordance with relevant statutory and council processes and procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201810025 as a PDF (24.48 KB) Updated: August 19, 2020

Mr and Mrs C complained about the actions taken by the council following their child's (Child A) disclosure that they had been inappropriately touched by another pupil. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council's education service had not reasonably followed their own procedures to safeguard their child. We found that the education service had acted in accordance with their policy and guidance by discussing the matter with Child A and making a referral to social work. In the circumstances, we found that the steps taken by the school to safeguard Child A were a discretionary matter for the council's education service to determine and we were satisfied that the matter was appropriately considered and a number of measures were put in place. We did not consider that there was an obligation for the council to exclude the other child involved from school. In light of this, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint about the council's education service. Mr and Mrs C also complained that the council's social work service failed to provide them with reasonable support. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that reasonable action had been taken by social work, including an assessment of the situation and contact with the school, the police and the families involved. We did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint regarding the action taken by social work. Lastly, Mr and Mrs C complained about how the council had handled their complaints. We found that there was a delay in responding to the complaint made on their behalf by an MSP and that they were not kept updated on the progress of their complaint or provided with a revised timescale for the response. We also found that the council's responses did not address all the concerns Mr and Mrs C raised. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the council had handled a planning application unreasonably. She noted that there were a number of admitted errors, which she said materially affected the conclusion reached by the planning officer. We took independent planning advice and found that although the council had acknowledged these errors, they were not sufficient to consider the council acted inappropriately or unreasonably. The council had provided detailed explanations for their decision and had been able to demonstrate that they were made on appropriate planning grounds. In addition we found some of the issues being raised by Mrs C, such as a boundary dispute with the developer, were in fact civil matters and could not be decided through the planning process. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804338 as a PDF (23.7 KB) Updated: September 18, 2019

Mrs C complained about the actions of her child's (Child A) school following reports of bullying. She explained that her child had been bullied most of their school life and that the bullying had mostly been carried out by one other child. Mrs C acknowledged that the school had taken some actions and the situation had started to improve. However, incidents later continued, leaving her child increasingly upset and anxious. In light of this, Mrs C felt the school had not done enough to prevent the bullying incidents and provide support to her child. Mrs C also complained about whether the incidents of bullying had been recorded appropriately by the school. Finally, Mrs C complained about how the council had communicated with her during and after the complaints process. In respect of the first complaint, we concluded that the school had taken reasonable and appropriate steps to address incidents of bullying experienced by Child A. We noted that the school had appeared to have taken a number of steps to prevent interactions between Child A and the other child, provide support to Child A and put in place measures to address the other child's behaviours. The approach taken by the school appeared to be tailored to the individual circumstances of Child A and the type of bullying they were experiencing. We acknowledged that there were times where the other child had interacted with Child A in an upsetting way despite these measures being in place. However, we recognised that it can be very difficult to prevent such incidents from happening completely. Overall, we concluded that the school took the reports of bullying seriously and made reasonable efforts to assist Child A and prevent further incidents from happening. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The second complaint related to how the school recorded incidents of bullying. Mrs C had submitted a freedom of information (FOI) request to determine what incidents involving Child A had be

Mr and Mrs C were foster parents for a young child (Child A) with additional needs. Child A was moved to a residential care home by the council. During their time there, Mr and Mrs C raised concerns about Child A's care and treatment. The council investigated the concerns and concluded there was no evidence of criminality and that the marks founds on Child A were consistent with the reports that they had injured themself through play. Mr and Mrs C disagreed with the conclusions of the investigation. We investigated whether the council responded appropriately to the child protection concerns that they raised. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council responded promptly to the concerns raised by undertaking a high volume of visits and adopting a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation. However, we found that there was a significant delay in obtaining the incident reports from the residential care home. These were required to be provided within 24 hours, and they were not provided until five weeks after the original request. We considered this delay to be unreasonable as the reports were required to inform important decision-making regarding the child protection investigation. We upheld the complaint.

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably threatened her with legal and police action after she had written comments on social media about one of their officers. The council provided relevant documentation and information about their zero tolerance policy. They said that they had consulted their own legal team and requested that Ms C remove the comments referred to, and should she fail to do so, they would report the matter to the police and their legal team. We found there was no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in the circumstances; there was no threat of legal action. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805767 as a PDF (23.62 KB) Updated: May 22, 2019

Miss C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised about bullying and harassment of her child (Child A). Miss C attended a meeting with the school and the police to discuss her concerns, however, she felt that the head teacher was dismissive and did not appreciate the seriousness of the concerns she was raising. Miss C also complained that the council did not interview relevant witnesses and felt that the council were only accepting the school's account of what happened during the meeting. The council confirmed that they were continuing to work with the police and that they were committed to supporting Child A. The council also provided details of the different support that was put in place. We did not find any evidence to support Miss C's account of what was said during her meeting with the head teacher. We considered that the school had acted reasonably by putting in appropriate support for Child A. We also found that the council's investigation of Miss C's complaint was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801816 as a PDF (23.79 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably charged her for repairs to her former tenancy. We found that it was reasonable for the council to charge Ms C for the repairs. The council had followed their procedure, although there was a delay in issuing the invoice. Ms C was also informed in writing in the tenancy agreement and during the termination process that she could be invoiced for rechargeable repairs identified after the pre-termination inspection. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to her appeal for the charged repairs. We found that the council's response provided photographic evidence, referred to their recharge procedure and Ms C's tenancy agreement to support their view that the charges were due. The council provided a reasonable explanation of how they have come to their view and offered a payment plan to pay the charge in instalments. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804495 as a PDF (23.73 KB) Updated: February 20, 2019