SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about their experience at the primary school of their child (A) who has additional support needs. C requested independent mediation with the school and a Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP) for A. C complained that the council failed to reasonably handle these requests, and that they did not reasonably apply their Unacceptable Actions policy in C’s case. The council said that an internal mediation process had been put in place and a member of staff was mediating with C on behalf of Education Services. The council said that this went well, so there was no requirement to involve an independent mediator. We found that C was not reasonably informed about the start of the internal mediation process. The council acknowledged that there was a slight delay in handling C’s request for a CSP. We found that the council failed to meet the eight-week timescale for responding to requests for CSPs, as set out in the council’s policy and statutory guidance. We also found that the council did not reasonably inform C that they had the right to make a reference to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal The council said that the Unacceptable Actions policy has been applied correctly. We found that the council failed to provide C with a warning letter prior to restricting C’s contact, and that there was a delay in the council’s response to C’s appeal of the decision to apply the Unacceptable Actions policy. Additionally, we found that the council should have referred to relevant policies and guidance in investigating C’s complaints about their request for a CSP and the application of the Unacceptable Actions policy. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

C, a taxi driver, complained about the way the council had handled their medical examination which they were required to attend to determine their fitness to DVLA Group 2 medical standards (medical standards for driver licencing refer to two groups, with Group 2 licence holders usually requiring substantially higher medical standards). C had passed the medical examination pending the results of an Exercise Tolerance Test (ETT). However the council did not follow up on the results of this test. As such, C was unaware until their next medical some years later that their ETT had met the threshold for referral to DVLA for further consideration of their fitness to drive. C had continued to work as a taxi driver throughout this time. On recognising this oversight, C’s taxi licence was suspended to be later re-instated after an assessment undertaken by an NHS cardiologist (heart specialist) was reviewed by the council’s occupational health provider and they were considered fit to drive. In complaining to the council, C was advised the matter would be investigated internally and no further response was received, despite their requests for further updates. We found that the council’s administration of C’s medical examination was unreasonable, noting that the ETT results had not been followed up on as they should have been, and that this oversight had not been noticed until C’s next medical examination some years later. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint. We found failings with the council’s complaint handling, noting they had not fulfilled their duties in keeping with the Model Complaint Handling Procedure for local authorities. Therefore, we also upheld this complaint.

C complained about the council's handling of their complaints about their child (A) being bullied at their school by another child. They advised that the bullying had persisted for a number of years and complained of the school repeatedly using the same strategies with little effect or of them being stopped prematurely. They also complained that the council had failed to keep proper records of the incidents of bullying. C said that this lack of documentation had contributed to the school continually using the same anti-bulling strategies despite them not working. C made two formal complaints to the council, both of which were partially upheld by the council and which identified failings and described actions for improvement. We found that the council had implemented anti-bullying strategies following C's first complaint which had had a positive impact on behaviour, however they did not keep this under review in line with their policies and the bullying recommenced during a period when no measures were in place. This led to C making a further complaint. Following C's second complaint, we found that the council were now monitoring the behaviour and adhering to their anti-bullying policies. However, as C had been required to make a second formal complaint to achieve this outcome, we upheld this complaint. In reference to the council's record-keeping of the reported incidents of bullying, we found that the council had improved their documentation since C's first complaint about this and incidents of bullying were now being recorded on the appropriate systems. As this was no longer a problem at the time of C's second complaint, we did not uphold this complaint. As C had advised of being unaware of the stage at which their complaints were being handled, we provided feedback to the council to ensure that the complaint handling procedure was clearly explained to complainants.

C is welfare guardian (a court appointed guardian who can make decisions on behalf of an adult with incapacity) for their adult sibling (A). A was assessed in hospital by the health and social care partnership as needing full-time residential adult care. C disagreed with this assessment and considered that A would be better cared for at home. C returned A to their home following their hospital discharge. C maintained that as A had been assessed as requiring full-time care, they were entitled to have this fully funded at home and that they were entitled to be offered the relevant self-directed support payment options for this care. Glasgow City Council refused to provide such funding, maintaining that they were only under a duty to fully fund the care assessed as needed. Adult protection procedures were considered but as C was now providing full-time care to A, alongside a council funded care package, no action was taken. C complained to the partnership about the assessment outcome and the failure to provide fully funded full-time home care for A. There were considerable delays in responding to the complaint for which the partnership later apologised, however they maintained their view that A was not entitled to full-time fully funded home care and their original assessment had been appropriate. C brought their complaint to this office and raised further concerns about the tone of partnership's communications and the investigation of their complaint. We found that A was entitled to assessment under the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act and funding to meet the needs assessed. However, the council were not obliged to provide funding to meet care costs where the care being provided did not meet that assessed need (in this case care at home rather than residential care). We concluded that the assessment of A's needs was appropriate and that the council were not obligated to offer self-directed support payments. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. Related

C complained about the council’s handling of their correspondence in relation to an alleged bus lane contravention. C said that the council responded to their request for the record (evidence) of the contravention, made under subsection 8(5) of the Bus Lane Contraventions (Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 with a notice of rejection under subsection 10(b) of the Regulations. C said that this resulted in them being prematurely moved on to the ‘appeal to the adjudicator’ stage of the process, and they did not have a proper opportunity to make representations to the council. The council said that they had treated C’s correspondence as a representation against the contravention due to C’s use of the word ‘alleged’ in reference to the contravention, because C appeared unhappy with the issue of the charge notice. We reviewed all of the evidence provided by both C and the council, as well as the relevant Regulations. We considered that the council had unreasonably interpreted C’s correspondence as being representations against the charge notice, as the evidence supported C’s position that they were making a request for the record of contravention. We considered that this resulted in C missing out on the opportunity to properly make representations to the council before being moved on to the second stage of the appeal process set out in the Regulations. We upheld C’s complaint.

C applied for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund (SWF) at the council. C's application was refused and they submitted a first tier review request. The council partially changed their decision and awarded C some household goods. C complained that their application for a community care grant was not assessed reasonably in line with the SWF statutory guidance. C said that they had incurred rent arrears because their application was refused incorrectly at initial decision and they were unable to move into their new tenancy without the award of goods from the SWF. We found that C's application was refused at initial decision as the council assessed that C had not signed for their tenancy. We found that the council had not followed the SWF guidance as they failed to give the applicant an opportunity to resolve any conflicts in evidence regarding whether they had signed for their tenancy or not. We further found that the council had a policy not to make awards in principle which was not in line with the statutory guidance, and we considered an award in principle should have been made in C's case. As a result, we upheld this complaint.

C complained that their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been addressed by the school they attended. C met with teaching staff to discuss the incidents giving rise to their complaints and subsequently attended a parent-teacher meeting. C complained that school staff had behaved unreasonably towards them, in particular at the parent-teacher meeting. We explained to C that we could not determine whether bullying took place. We could look at whether the council took reasonable action after C reported their concerns and whether the school and the council followed the correct procedures in response to those concerns. We found there was a clear record of C’s reports of incidents of bullying. The school has detailed the action it took to investigate the incidents and was able to provide evidence to support its decisions. This was in line with the council’s anti-bullying policy. We considered that the council handled C's complaints about bullying in a reasonable way. In considering C’s complaint about how staff had behaved, we reviewed the evidence provided by C and the council. We did not find any supporting evidence to conclude that the school’s staff had behaved unreasonably towards C. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201809868 as a PDF (24.28 KB) Updated: August 19, 2020

C applied to the council for a disabled parking badge. After waiting a period of time for the badge to arrive, they contacted the council to advise they had not yet received it. The council agreed to send C a replacement badge. C received a badge in the post and proceeded to use it, understanding this was the replacement badge. C received two penalty charge notices from another council while they were parked and displaying their badge in that council area. The badge had a valid date. The penalty charge notices stated the reason for issue as 'parking in a restricted street where restrictions are in force'. C's car was impounded a few days later and they were advised by the other council that this was because they had been displaying a cancelled badge. The badge C understood to be the replacement badge was in fact the original badge which the council had cancelled after C reported that they had not received it. C complained that they had no way of knowing they had been using a cancelled badge. C believed they should be reimbursed for the sums they had been fined, and for additional costs they had incurred as a consequence of using the badge, including taxis to and from work while waiting for a new badge to arrive. We found that this situation could have been avoided if the council had been explicit about the number of the badge they were cancelling and the number of the replacement badge they were sending. There was no evidence that C was made aware or could have had any awareness that the badge they were using was cancelled. We considered that the administration of the badge was unreasonable and we therefore upheld this complaint. C also complained that the council's handling of their complaint was unreasonable. We found that the council had failed to follow the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that the council unfairly imposed restrictions on his contact with them, had not followed their unacceptable actions policy (UAP) and failed to properly consider Mr C's appeal against the restrictions imposed under the UAP. Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to his complaint in line with their obligations. We found that the council had failed to provide Mr C with a warning about his contact at the time these contacts were received from Mr C. In addition, we considered that the council were unable to evidence that a warning letter, which is required under the UAP, was sent to Mr C. Therefore, when restrictions on Mr C's contact were imposed, these were done immediately and without the UAP having been followed. We also found that the council failed to properly consider Mr C's appeal against the restrictions imposed. We, therefore, upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we found that Mr C raised issues in his complaint that the council had not considered as a complaint, and had not responded to. We found that these issues should have been considered as a complaint and that, in accordance with the council's complaints handling procedure, a response should have been provided. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained about the primary school her child (Child A) attended. She complained that she was not updated about Child A's academic progress; that Child A was unreasonably given access to scissors; that there was an unreasonable failure to record incidents with other pupils; and that there was a failure to communicate reasonably with her regarding her concerns. In relation to Child A's academic progress, we found that there were appropriate pupil progress reports and that these had been discussed with Ms C at parents' evenings. We considered that this was reasonable and that although there was no record of other discussions about Child A's academic progress, this was appropriate as it was not something which appeared to have been raised. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. With regard to Child A having access to scissors, we were not able to establish that this had occurred and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we noted that there appeared to have been some inconsistencies in the way an incident was recorded, and we suggested that the council may wish to reflect upon this. We found that the council's recording of incidents with other pupils was reasonable and in line with policy, and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Finally, in relation to communication, we found that on one occasion, there was a failure to pass a letter that Ms C had handed in to the school to the appropriate person. We considered that this was likely to be a one-off failure, however, we upheld the complaint about communication on this basis.

Ms C, an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Ms A) that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organisation will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). The council are entitled to apply their UAP in appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision, rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. We considered the council's UAP and the actions they took in Ms A's case. We found that the council's letter to Ms A, restricting her contact with them, failed to include details of the appeals process, failed to make it clear what behaviour they considered unacceptable that led to them apply the UAP, and failed to explain the extent of the UAP restriction. The council also failed to respond to Ms A's appeal against the UAP restriction. There was no contemporaneous record or audit trail to explain the rationale for not issuing a warning letter to Ms A prior to invoking the UAP restriction, and not reviewing Ms A's restriction at a bi-annual meeting as per the council's UAP. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained about a cafe premises near his property. The complaint included issues relating to the operation of a kitchen in the basement of the cafe and the placing of seating and tables outside the front of the cafe. In relation to the operation of a basement kitchen, Mr C stated that the council failed to enforce building standards within a reasonable period of time after becoming aware of the fact that the cafe was operating a kitchen in the basement. We found that the council had made efforts over a period of time to get the cafe owner to comply and remove the basement kitchen, however, the cafe owner did not comply. Given the period of time that had passed it was clear that negotiations were not successful. We noted that the council have discretion regarding whether or not they will take enforcement action. However, we considered that the council should have taken a proactive approach and confirmed if the current situation was acceptable to them and why, or take suitable enforcement action within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about a failure on the part of the council to address health and safety breaches in relation to the café's kitchen. We considered that the council are required to make their decision regarding the existence of the basement kitchen clear before it could be determined if the council required to seek further compliance with the health and safety matters raised. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to the seating and tables, Mr C complained that the cafe had not applied for planning permission for outdoor seating and the council had failed to address this within a reasonable period of time. We found that the cafe owner had signed The Street Cafe Annual Agreement that stated that planning permission must be obtained. We noted that the council were aware of the fact that this had not been obtained. We considered that th

Mr C complained about construction site noise at a development near to his property. In particular, that there was a lack of notification about out-of-hours noisy works, the necessity of working so late and the lack of alternative/mitigating measures used by the developer, and noisy work being carried out before 8.00am or outwith recommended times at weekends. He also asked the council to consider his complaint within the context of the statutory noise nuisance legislation contained in the Environmental Protection Act (the EPA). The council had stated that there was not a statutory obligation to notify residents of out-of-hours noisy work but that it was good practice for the developer to do this. They highlighted that they had asked the developer to provide notifications to Mr C's address after he originally did not receive one. The council also stated that they had provided consent for out-of-hours noisy work to take pace. In addition to this, they discussed alternative/mitigating measures with the developer but it was decided that these would not be practical at this particular site. Finally, the council advised that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (the COPA) applies to construction site noise and it is not appropriate to use provisions under the EPA in cases like this. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. We found the council's explanation for why they did not consider the noise complaints under the EPA to be reasonable. We did not consider that the EPA could not apply to construction site noise but we accepted the council's reasoning for this. We also considered the actions taken by the council were reasonable and in line with their obligations. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201704671 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action about a neighbour's replacement UPVC windows, which were a breach of planning control. He also complained that the council had failed to take action about the amenity of the same property, due to construction works at the property. Mr C was also unhappy with how his complaint was handled. In particular, he did not feel all the information he provided was fully considered by the council before they responded to his complaint. The council said that the initial concerns raised about the replacement UPVC windows were not submitted through the appropriate enforcement complaint process. Therefore, they were not investigated as a breach of planning control at that time. The council said that they had investigated Mr C's concerns about the condition of the site but did not consider that there was a level of harm to amenity to justify taking formal action. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The planning adviser considered that the council should have investigated the replacement UPVC windows as a breach of planning control, even though it was not raised through their enforcement complaint process. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to the amenity of the property, we found that the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate the complaint about the condition of the site and to assess the harm caused to amenity. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Finally, we did not uphold Mr C's concern about the council's complaints handling, as we considered that they had taken reasonable steps to address his concerns.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take action to address anti-social behaviour at a derelict yard they own, which backs on to her parents' house. She complained that large groups of youths were gathering at night, playing loud music and misusing drugs and alcohol. One of the buildings had been set on fire several times, causing concern because of its proximity to her parents' property. Mrs C's father (Mr A) had contacted the council on a number of occasions, asking them to take steps to address the problem. After several months without any satisfactory resolution Mrs C complained to the council on her father's behalf, and when she remained dissatisfied with their response she brought her complaint to SPSO. We found that, until Mrs C complained to them, the council did very little to address the concerns raised by Mr A. They also failed to keep Mr A informed about what action they were taking. We noted that they had taken steps to secure the site, in line with their obligations as landlord, but these steps did little or nothing to prevent access. The council had now taken steps to have buildings on the site demolished and cleared, and although we considered this a positive step, we thought this could have been undertaken much sooner. We upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Mr and Mrs C's child (child A) was a pupil in a primary school. Child A started to show signs of difficulty with reading and writing, which became more apparent when they moved into the next school year. Mr and Mrs C removed child A from the school as they believed that the school had told them that they could no longer support their child. Mr and Mrs C complained that the school failed to assess their child for dyslexia and to provide the appropriate support. We found that the school had acted appropriately in line with the council's "Dyslexia Guidelines". The evidence we received showed that the school assessed child A's needs as they progressed through the school years and that support was provided. We found no evidence to corroborate Mr and Mrs C's view that the school stated that they could no longer support child A. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201708324 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that, following major infrastructure works to install a water pipeline, the council failed to ensure that a specific area of park was returned to an acceptable condition. We found that, when the council were served notice of the works by the water company, they were told that after the works were completed the land would be reinstated to the council's satisfaction. Mr C felt that the area of the park he was concerned about had been changed and not returned to an acceptable condition. In the council's view, the reinstatement was sympathetic to the area where the works took place, and the council regarded reinstatement of the site as satisfactory. As it was the council's land, it was for them to be satisfied. Although we appreciated that Mr C disagreed with the council's view, that disagreement was not evidence of an administrative failing by the council. There was no definition of what was regarded as satisfactory or acceptable condition, therefore, the matter came down to the professional judgement of council officers on whether the reinstatement was satisfactory. In the absence of evidence of an administrative failing, we could not question the council's decision. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201702451 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable standard of care to his elderly father (Mr A). Mr C said that care provision was often changed at short notice and that his father was left unattended for unreasonable periods of time. Mr C was concerned that contact with the council was always by phone and he felt that inadequate records had been kept of his concerns about the service. Mr C complained that communication from the council was inappropriate as mail was sent to Mr A, despite his lack of capacity and repeated requests for it to be sent directly to him instead. Mr C was also concerned that the council failed to handle his complaints reasonably. We found that the overall standard of care provided to Mr A by the council was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also found that the standard of record-keeping, on their electronic records system 'Caretrack', was inconsistent and that the council had failed to communicate reasonably with Mr C by not providing confirmation of changes in planned care provision in writing. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that Mr C now had an email contact he could use. Finally, we found that Mr C's complaints had not been handled reasonably as there was no clear evidence that the council had followed through on the actions they had said that they would take. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained to the council about how the proceeds from the sale of her mother's house were apportioned between Mrs C's family and care home fees. The matter was considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), after which Mrs C brought her complaints to us. Mrs C complained that the council handled the CRC unreasonably. She had concerns about the CRC panel's interaction with the social work representatives who attended the hearing and she felt that these interactions called the CRC panel's impartiality into question. The CRC procedure did, however, allow the panel to ask questions of those present at the CRC, which included Mrs C and the social work department. We did not consider the evidence indicated that the CRC was handled unreasonably. We did not uphold the complaint. Mrs C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide adequate reasons for the CRC's decision not to uphold her underlying complaint. Although we acknowledged that the report they had produced was concise, it did detail the two specific points of complaint that Mrs C had agreed to in advance of the hearing. We also felt that their explanation, while brief, was clear that they did not agree with the case Mrs C had put forward. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700643 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C raised concerns about the way in which a social work review meeting, relating to his partner's elderly mother (Mrs A), was conducted. Mr C wanted the minutes of the previous meeting to be reviewed at the start so that he could raise points relating to that minute. This did not happen and Mr C raised this issue with the chairperson. Following discussions, the chairperson chose to suspend the meeting. Mr C complained that the council: failed to reasonably address the genuine concerns raised by Mr C and his partner about inaccuracies in the previous minute; unreasonably terminated the meeting stating that it was due to Mr C's behaviour; unreasonably failed to obtain independent evidence of Mr C's behaviour at the meeting before responding to the complaint; and unreasonably failed to confirm the council's policy on the roles and responsibilities of a chairperson when responding to the complaint. We found that it was reasonable that a chairperson should be able to conduct a meeting as they saw fit, provided they met the purpose of that meeting. However, we considered that the chairperson should have clearly communicated how the meeting was to be conducted. This should have included reference to the fact that the previous minute of a meeting would not be addressed because the chairperson had not been present at that meeting. The chairperson should also have stated who would have been able to address any queries about the previous minute. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. In relation to Mr C's behaviour, we agreed that the council were not required to seek a second opinion from another person present at the meeting. We found that if a chairperson felt they could not carry out the purpose of a meeting due to the actions of someone present then they were entitled to suspend that meeting. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint. We found that, whilst the council did not have a policy on how meetings should be conducted, it had an accepted practic

Mr C was concerned that the council had not reasonably assessed whether the structural stability and provision of natural light to his house met the tolerable standard in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act, and that the council had not reasonably considered whether to exercise powers under the Roads (Scotland) Act in relation to a footpath outside his home. We found that no request for an assessment of tolerable standard had been made by Mr C, and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had correctly concluded that the Roads (Scotland) Act did not apply to the footpath outside Mr C's house, as it had not been adopted by them and they were not responsible for its maintenance. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201604984 as a PDF (10.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms and Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action in response to reports of bullying of their children at school by another child. In particular, Ms and Mr C were concerned that a restorative conversation was not facilitated by the school between their children and the other child. We did not uphold Ms C and Mr C's concerns about the actions taken concerning the bullying because we found that the actions taken by the school were inline with the steps set out in the council's policy. The school explained that they would normally take a restorative approach to bullying, but they explained why they did not consider the conditions were in place to do so. We felt the council's policy should reflect this so we made a recommendation in light of our findings.

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for the demolition of a section of internal garden wall in a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission. Mr C complained that the report of handling of the application had not been reasonable because the author commented upon the state of repair of the wall having only seen it in photographs. Mr C also complained that the report did not reasonably evaluate the application in line with policy or justify its conclusions. He also complained that the council's responses to his complaints were contradictory and misrepresented both their policies and the significance of the visibility of the wall from public areas. We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that it was reasonable in the circumstances that the report's author had only seen the wall in photographs. The adviser also gave their view that the council's consideration of relevant policies had been reasonable. We accepted the adviser's views and concluded that the council's evaluation of the application had been reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint. We reached the view, taking into account the adviser's opinion, that the council's complaints responses did not misrepresent their policies or the significance of the visibility of the wall. We also concluded that the responses were not contradictory, but that they reasonably addressed the different points Mr C had raised at different stages of the complaints process. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608864 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of two of their children (Master A and Miss A), who have additional support needs. They complained that the council failed to provide the children with adequate educational support, that they had failed to follow their anti-bullying policy in relation to Master A, and that their investigation of the complaint was unreasonable. They also complained that the head teacher of the children's school had made an inappropriate referral to the social work department. In response to our enquiry the council provided us with the children's pastoral care notes, the children's wellbeing assessments and plans, and the relevant council policies. We found that the council mostly appeared to have followed their policies when providing the children with educational support but we noted that neither Mr and Mrs C, nor the children, had been consulted in relation to the children's wellbeing assessments and plans, which is in line with council policies. However, we did not consider that this was in itself enough to uphold the complaints. In relation to the complaint about bullying, it was clear that there was a difference in opinion between the council and Mr and Mrs C. Mr and Mrs C considered that Master A had experienced a number of incidences of bullying, but the council disagreed and had therefore not recorded the events as bullying. In relation to one incident involving another child that had been recorded, we considered that the council had dealt with the matter appropriately and in line with their anti-bullying policy. We were critical of the way in which the council had investigated this complaint. Mrs C had to chase a response and the council's initial response to her was very brief. We considered that the investigation could have been carried out more clearly and transparently. In relation to the social work referral we found that contact had been made in an informal way with a view to supporting the family, and we therefore did not upho

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for external alterations to a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. The proposal was to increase the height of the roof of an existing utility building and associated works to create additional living space. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission subject to conditions. The first of these was that the development had to be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings. Mr C was concerned that the council's decision had been procedurally flawed and based on inaccurate information. He complained to the council about this. At both stages of the council's complaints procedure the responses stated their conclusions that the decision had been taken properly and on the basis of accurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with these responses and raised his complaints with us. We upheld Mr C's complaints that statements in the report were inaccurate (specifically statements that the pitch of the roof 'will match' the main house and that the rooflights will be 'invisible from a public area'); that the approved drawings associated with the application did not contain sufficient written dimensions to ensure that the precise location and scale of what was being proposed was clear; and that the council did not respond reasonably to some of Mr C's complaints. We did not uphold complaints that the evaluation of the application against relevant guidance was unreasonable or that the inadequacies of the report of handling meant that the decision on the application was unreasonable.