SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the advice received and actions taken by trading standards in relation to concerns that they had reported about a builder who had undertaken work for two of their relatives. C said that the council did not provide them with adequate information regarding the steps they could take to establish if they had cause to take further action against the builder, and the timescale in which this was required to be done. We found that the council had reasonably explained the steps taken in reviewing C's complaint. Whilst we recognised that no information had been given in relation to issues which were time barred, we considered it could not be known until completion of the assessment which matters could be progressed. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. C complained that the council suggested they obtain an independent report of the work completed at personal cost to them. We found that C had sought advice from other sources, and we considered their decision to commission the report had been informed by their wider research and not just on the advice given by trading standards. We also did not find any evidence to support that C had been told that an independent report would be required before their case could be taken to the procurator fiscal. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. C also complained that the council provided them with an inconsistent and inadequate response to their complaints. We found that the response was in keeping with the information shared with C by trading standards. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202004623 as a PDF (24.52 KB) Updated: June 19, 2024

C complained that the council's response to their reports of anti-social behaviour had been inadequate. C said that their neighbour was subject to an anti-social behaviour order which they had repeatedly breached. The council provided C with a noise recording application which allowed them to record noise and disturbances and send these reports to the council. However, C complained that they were not provided with sufficient information on how to use the application and on what the council would accept as evidence of anti-social behaviour. The council rejected C’s submissions as evidence of significant noise problems and refused to let C submit additional recordings. We found that the council had responded to C’s complaints of anti-social behaviour appropriately. Their response had been affected by delays in hearing court cases, but this was outwith the council’s control. It was also noted that actions taken by the council could not always be shared with C. We considered that C was provided with adequate guidance on using the noise recording application. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. C also complained that they were prevented from making further complaints by the council. We found no evidence that C was being prevented from making further complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour. The council stated explicitly as part of their submission to the investigation that if there was evidence of a material change in circumstances, then C would be allowed to complain about this. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202007741 as a PDF (24.5 KB) Updated: March 22, 2023

C complained that the council, as planning authority, failed to provide reasonable justification to discharge two conditions relating to an approved planning application of a development of a historic site. C considered that the council discharged the conditions without the applicant providing solid evidence of compliance. The first condition related to the pre-commencement condition for scheduled monument consent (SMC) (part one) and that the extension could not be used until the restoration of the site had been completed (part two). The council advised, initially, the discharge of part one of the condition was based on the SMC for the first stage of site works. Later the council justified the discharge of part one of the condition as it duplicated the effect of another organisation and therefore should not have been imposed as a pre-commencement condition. We took independent planning advice. We found that while the council’s communication in relation to the discharge of the first condition could have been clearer and more consistent, their ultimate rationale was reasonable. Therefore we did not uphold this this aspect of the complaint. The second pre-commencement condition related to the requirement for a full survey of the historic site and grounds to establish whether they were being used by roosting or hibernating bats and any further actions to minimise the disturbance of same if found. We found that the council had already acknowledged that the survey works should have been requested prior to the determination of the planning application rather than as a pre-commencement condition. As the condition had been made, the council considered the information provided by the applicant, including a bat survey report. On receipt of the report from that survey the council contacted Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to gain their views. SNH confirmed their acceptance of the report. On the basis of the response from SNH, the condition was discharged. We found that the coun

Mr C complained about the council's communication with him. Mr C owns a flat in a building in which the council owns another flat. Mr C arranged repairs due to rising damp in the property, and he complained that the council's communication with regard to their contribution to repairs was unreasonable. He felt the council did not make it clear what they would contribute to and how much; failed to ask for details at the beginning of the process that they later requested; and generally made the process complicated. We found that much of the council's communication had been reasonable, however, we also found that there had been a delay in acknowledging one of Mr C's emails and that the council had failed to respond to Mr C within the timescale they had agreed to. We also found that at one stage, the council continually referred to requiring invoices when estimates had already been agreed as being sufficient, and that the council's position on betterment and the evidence needed from Mr C could have been clearer from the outset. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

Ms C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a housing development adjacent to her property. Ms C complained that the council did not tell her about changes that had been made to the site plan and that she was not given a further opportunity to provide representations. Ms C also complained that when the building work started, the nearest house was significantly closer to her boundary than what the council had told her the separation distances would be. We took independent planning advice. We found that the council was not required to invite Ms C to make further representations on the planning application, as they did not consider the changes to the site plan had been significant. We noted that in their response to Ms C's complaint, the council acknowledged that they had told her the wrong separation distances. However, we also found that the council had relied upon these inaccurate separation distances in their assessment of the planning application. We considered the council's response to Ms C did not adequately acknowledge or address this. We also considered that their assessment did not contain enough detail about how they assessed the impact on Ms C's amenity. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained about the actions of his child's (Child A) school in relation to an incident that took place during a meeting. Mr C said that the council failed to act appropriately after the incident took place. The council stated that there was no agreement about what took place during the meeting. We considered that it was clear that Mr C and the school had provided a different account of the incident. Therefore, we did not take a view on what exactly took place during the meeting. However, we did have concerns about the lack of recording and reporting that took place following the incident. We appreciate that there was an element of professional judgement involved in what incidents should be recorded, however, under the particular circumstances, we considered there to be a number of factors that suggested further recording and reporting of the incident was warranted. This included the fact that an animal was involved in the incident, that a risk assessment had previously been carried out and the circumstances matched some of the risks identified, and that there was a disagreement between the school and parent about what had taken place. We concluded that it would have been appropriate for the school to have recorded the incident and an appropriate senior member of staff to consider what took place in line with the council's Electronic Incident Reporting Standard. Therefore, we did not consider the school to have taken appropriate actions after the incident and upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained about how her application for accessible housing points (points awarded to someone to help them find an alternative property, on the basis that their current home is not suitable for their needs) was assessed. We found that the council had appropriately arranged for an assessment by an occupational therapist. We found that this was in line with the council's procedures. We also found that, when Ms C had requested another assessment a year later, this was provided. The amount of points awarded was increased following this second assessment, as Ms C's ability to carry out normal tasks in her current home had deteriorated. We considered that this was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700955 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C bought a second property with a view to renovating it and eventually moving into it. It took Mr C some time to bring the property up to habitable standards, and he moved into the property two and half years after buying it. When he moved in, he received a notification from the council about a council tax levy that was imposed on him from seven months earlier. Mr C complained to the council that they failed to inform him of this levy in writing at that time. He also believed the legislation from the Scottish Government gave local authorities flexibility and discretion when imposing the levy. We asked the council if the policy to impose a council tax levy on unoccupied properties was a blanket decision and whether they considered that they were not using their discretion when they could have been. The council confirmed that it was a blanket decision as they wanted to treat all home owners equally, and therefore it was not unreasonable to not consider Mr C's individual circumstances. Following our investigation, the council accepted that they failed to take the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance into account when they originally drafted their policy. However, we also found that the council were correct in how they interpreted the relevant regulations and that they had the discretion to impose the levy on all cases and not take into account individual circumstances. Our investigation found that the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance on the regulations was not accurate and conflicted with the regulations. As a result, the Scottish Government has agreed to amend the guidance. We did not uphold this complaint, however we recommended that the council review their policy for council tax levies for unoccupied dwellings. The council explained there was an administrative error when processing Mr C's account which explained why he did not receive notification of the council tax levy in writing. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained to the council that they did not adequately respond to the repairs at his property relating to dampness and a faulty boiler. He also complained that the council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and failed to take into account his mental health when determining that he was intentionally homeless. In their response to Mr C the council summarised the works carried out to the property. They said that the issues reported with regards to the boiler were resolved and that there was no issues with respect to dampness which would have made the property uninhabitable or would have caused the health problems Mr C had reported. With respect to the homelessness application, they reiterated the process that they had followed. Mr C was not happy with the response and brought his complaint to us. We found that the council had adequately responded to reported faults at the property. Boiler works were carried out in accordance with their policy and, whilst there was a delay in providing a full reinstatement to flooring in the bathroom following an identified leak, this was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not cause the property to be uninhabitable. With respect to the homelessness application, we were satisfied that the council properly assessed Mr C's circumstances, communicated with him effectively throughout the process, provided him with accommodation throughout and clarified points he raised at a review meeting. It was clear that the council obtained relevant information, particularly with respect to Mr C's health and mental health, and made their decision in accordance with appropriate policies and guidance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201702249 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C was unhappy with the condition of a property she moved into. She said the property was not clean and smelled of urine, with stains on the floors and doorways. Miss C said that it took the council too long to carry out repairs that were needed, and that the council did not respond to all the issues she raised in her complaint. The council's letting standard is that properties should be clean and free of offensive smells. It was clear from the void inspection report that the property was in a poor state of cleanliness. However, we found evidence that some cleaning was carried out, as the property was being cleaned when Miss C viewed it. We took into account that Miss C viewed the property and that neither Miss C, nor the council officer present at the viewing, noticed or reported any offensive smell at this time. Overall the evidence showed that the council had taken the kind of steps we would expect to check that the property was in a lettable condition by arranging for it to be cleaned and repaired. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. We found that when Miss C reported emergency repairs they were dealt with in a timely way, according to the council's policy. We found a flea infestation was treated within a reasonable timescale. Although the council's policy was not prescriptive in terms of how long repairs categorised as non-emergency should take, we found that the time taken to complete joinery works to replace sections of stained flooring was not excessive. The council acknowledged the disruption to Miss C in responding to her complaint. We found it took too long for the council to repair a path and steps and to replace a handrail. We asked the council to check whether this repair should have been carried out according to the right to repair legislation. There was also evidence that other small non-emergency repairs logged following an inspection visit were not progressed with reasonable efficiency and that relatively straightfo

Mr and Mrs C complained that after they accepted a house requiring modifications in respect of Mrs C's disabilities, the council failed to complete the work in a timely manner. They also complained that the council failed to provide them with suitable alternative accommodation for the duration of the works. Our investigation found that Mr and Mrs C accepted the property in the knowledge that works were necessary to make it suitable. While Mr and Mrs C maintained that the work was to be done before they took entry, we found nothing to confirm this. We noted that architect's plans were required to be drawn up and surveys (including a survey for the presence of asbestos) were needed before works could be specified for tender. This would all take time and Mr and Mrs C were encouraged to apply for housing benefit to allow them to remain in their original home until the work was done. Mr and Mrs C did not wish to do this, and so moved into the new accommodation. Once work was due to go ahead, Mr and Mrs C refused entry to the workers on the grounds that they needed alternative accommodation. We found that while the works did not require the council to provide alternative accommodation, they did offer Mr and Mrs C the use of facilities in a nearby sheltered housing complex. We therefore did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201600868 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the school's response to her concerns about how another pupil was treating her daughter, and that the council failed to investigate and respond to her complaint. We found the school had taken reasonable action when concerns were reported to them. Though there appeared to continue to be problems, the school could only act on the information provided to them. We also found that the council's investigations were reasonable. We did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201601941 as a PDF (10.78 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to repair defects with her windows. Mrs C had new windows fitted in late 2012. Since early 2013 she had reported problems with the windows. Each time she did, the council arranged for a joiner to visit and fix the window if necessary. There was no evidence that following those visits Mrs C had reported the fixes had not worked. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201500303 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council that trees at the rear of her property were blocking sunlight into her back garden. Ms C was not happy with the council's response, and so she complained to us that the council failed to prune or remove the trees, and about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that the council's tree and woodland management policy, while acknowledging that trees could create inconvenience for residents, stated that, as a general rule, pruning or removal works would not be carried out due to restriction of sunlight, unless it was judged to be excessive. In the professional opinion of council officers who assessed the trees, the restriction was not excessive, taking into account the health of the trees and their position. Ms C disagreed with this assessment. However, we explained to Ms C that her disagreement was not evidence of a failing on the part of the council, and that it was not for us to determine whether there was excessive sunlight restriction. We had some concerns about the time taken by the council to respond to Ms C's complaint, about the records kept by the council about site visits to the trees, and about the level of detail and explanation in the council's final response to Ms C. However, on balance, we were satisfied that the council's handling of Ms C's complaint was reasonable in the circumstances, as it responded to the key issue of the restriction of sunlight, in keeping with the council's policy. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201500080 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council that trees at the rear of her property were blocking sunlight into her back garden. Ms C was not happy with the council's response, and so she complained to us that the council failed to prune or remove the trees, and about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that the council's tree and woodland management policy, while acknowledging that trees could create inconvenience for residents, stated that, as a general rule, pruning or removal works would not be carried out due to restriction of sunlight, unless it was judged to be excessive. In the professional opinion of council officers who assessed the trees the restriction was not excessive, taking into account the health of the trees and their position. Ms C disagreed with this assessment. However, we explained to Ms C that her disagreement was not evidence of a failing on the part of the council, and that it was not for us to determine whether there was excessive sunlight restriction. We did not uphold this complaint. We had some concerns about the time taken by the council to respond to Ms C's complaint, about the records kept by the council about site visits to the trees, and about the level of detail and explanation in the council's final response to Ms C. We also found that the council's written responses to Ms C did not explicitly deal with the key issue of restriction of sunlight. Therefore, on balance, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C shared a private driveway with two rented properties. When she experienced problems with access because of the way the tenants parked their cars, she found that there was no landlord registration. She wrote to the council about her concerns. She said the council were not doing enough to address the issues she had raised. She then experienced further problems when a blocked drain at the rented property caused an overflow of sewage onto her driveway and she contacted the council about this matter too. After lengthy and detailed correspondence with the council about her dissatisfaction, the council referred her to our office. Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Ms C and the council, the council's records of contact with her, and the actions they took, as well as the relevant legislation. We found that the council had reasonably responded and addressed the matters she raised. However, we also noted that it was not always clear how the council were dealing with her complaints in terms of their complaints handling procedure, and we recommended that the council address this aspect.

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application for the development of a bar and restaurant near her home. She complained that the development did not adhere to the original plans and that this adversely impacted upon her privacy, the environment around her home and caused parking problems. She also complained that the council then approved a fresh planning application that permitted the development as constructed. During our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the council accepted that the development did not reflect the original planning application and conditions. However, that was not in itself evidence of fault on the part of the council. We were satisfied that the council, in line with government guidance and their own enforcement charter, took reasonable action to require the developer to submit a fresh amended planning application, which we were satisfied dealt with the breaches in planning control which the council had identified. There was no evidence of fault in the council's handling of these matters. Related reading View Decision Report 201300177 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C said that a teacher dragged her child out of class by the neck, and she complained about this to the council. Miss C was unhappy with the council's response and she complained to us. We could not look at the alleged incident itself, as the SPSO Act 2002 says that we cannot investigate conduct or discipline in schools. We looked at the council's handling of Miss C's complaint. We found that children, both in groups and as individuals, and school staff were asked about the alleged incident. In particular, the children were given an opportunity to speak to staff in confidence, or to leave an anonymous note. We were satisfied with the council's handling of the complaint and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406329 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not acted on two recommendations which were made by the complaints review committee, who hear complaints at the third and final stage of the council's complaint handling procedure for social work complaints. We found that the council had acted reasonably. Specifically there was evidence that the council had acted on the recommendation that they examine other facilities for the delivery of Mr C's son's support programme. Mr C said the council did not comply with a recommendation that future meetings should be recorded and agreed. The council explained that the purpose of the visit in question was to inspect and view the risks to Mr C's disabled son in his home environment. It was not a meeting as traditionally defined or at which decisions were made. We found the council's explanation to be rational and reasonable in the circumstances. Related reading View Decision Report 201406171 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council decided that some of his complaints were not eligible to be dealt with by the complaints review committee (CRC), which is the final stage of the council's social work complaints process. The council, by law, have a special process for dealing with complaints about social work services. The council said, and we agreed, that the particular complaints Mr C wanted the committee to look at were primarily educational rather than social work matters. The council had, at each stage of their complaints process, told Mr C that he should complain to the part of the council responsible for education, but we found that he had chosen to disregard this advice. Mr C also complained about the role of a council legal adviser during the committee meeting. He said that the officer had gone beyond her remit by asking him a question which he felt was an attempt to discredit his evidence. We found that the legal adviser had not acted unreasonably in asking the question, and the committee chairperson told us the question was relevant and reasonable. However, we thought it would have been helpful for the council to explain the role of each participant in advance of the committee and we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate his complaint about a defect in the drainage pipe serving his house. He said that there was an intermittent pungent smell, and evidence of dampness. We found that the matter had been investigated by three council departments. Some repairs had been undertaken, and the council believed that they had taken reasonable steps. As no-one from the council had contacted Mr C for four months, we asked them to call back to check if the situation remained as they had left matters. The council did so, and found that there was a problem in another area under the floorboards. The council carried out repairs, and Mr C informed us that he was satisfied that the matter had been investigated properly. We closed the case on the basis that a resolution had been achieved. Related reading View Decision Report 201403213 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his request for information about building standards. He felt the council had been unreasonably obstructive. We found that it took the council more than four months to acknowledge Mr C's request for information and over six months to respond. This was unacceptable. Although the council had apologised for the delay they had not acknowledged the considerable time and effort Mr C and his MP had to go to before getting a response. We asked the council to offer an apology which took account of this. The council told us the delay happened at a time of staff transition. We concluded that even during a time of reorganisation or transition the council should put arrangements in place to deal with incoming letters. We asked the council to carry out a review to check that suitable arrangements for handling correspondence within their building standards team were now in place. We did not find the content of the council's response to Mr C to be unreasonable. The information Mr C requested was readily available and free to view online. Nevertheless, when asked to reconsider, they did provide the hard copy information Mr C had asked for.

Mr C and Mr D own a listed country house hotel with substantial grounds. They had obtained conditional planning consent to build holiday cottages in the grounds. One condition said that the cottages should only be used for seasonal lets, but contained an ambiguous sentence. Mr C and Mr D interpreted this as implying that they could write and ask the planning authority to set aside that condition. When they then decided to sell one of the cottages, they engaged in an extensive pre-application discussion with the council. The council told them that they would require a planning application, which was submitted. Council officers prepared a report indicating that they would be prepared to recommend approval of the proposal, subject to completion of a section 75 agreement (a legal agreement that covers financial contributions to meet the services and infrastructure needs of the local community associated with the new development). A draft agreement was provided and agreed in principle by Mr C and Mr D. However, the council did not issue their decision within the required time period, and Mr C and Mr D submitted a notice of review to the local review body. The review body met, but while awaiting their decision Mr C and Mr D appealed to Scottish Ministers on grounds of non-determination of the original application. The local review board issued a notice of intention some days later, but this was negated by the appeal. Mr C and Mr D complained to us about the council's handling of this, including how they described the application. They also complained that the council failed to assess the application against relevant planning policies, that they unreasonably required the section 75 agreement without considering other options and that the local review body did not follow due process. Mr C and Mr D also said that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to their complaints. In the light of independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did

Mr C made three complaints about a wind turbine about which, because of its distance from his home, he had not received neighbour notification. The planning application was determined by council officers under delegated powers. Mr C complained that the council failed to require that a revised visual impact assessment was carried out (there had been an increase in the turbine height from a previously approved proposal); unreasonably granted planning consent despite the turbine height exceeding their own 60 metre guideline; and failed to take into account the impact of the development on properties between 500 and 750 metres from the site. Having taken detailed independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that the planning authority had clearly taken account of the material consideration of visual impact, both on the landscape and on adjacent houses. He considered that the guidance was essentially a strategic tool rather than a rigid policy threshold which could not be breached, and that the council had showed some flexibility and discretion by approving a turbine one metre higher than that guidance. He also said that the report of handling (a document about the application) and other documents submitted with the application showed that the visual and other impacts (particularly noise) on properties under 500 metres had been considered acceptable. In the adviser's view, it could then reasonably be assumed that this would be the case for dwellings sited more than 500 metres away. Related reading View Decision Report 201301311 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C made nine complaints about a wind turbine. Because of the distance between the turbine and his property, he had not received neighbour notification about the development, which was determined by council officers under delegated powers. Mr C said that the council ignored current guidance in assessing the noise impact; the officers’ report of handling (a document about the application) unreasonably failed to make a clear distinction about whether the separation distance was from the wind turbine to his property or to his house and contained a number of other defects. He also said that the assessment and report of handling were flawed in failing to take into account the impact of disruption to him from ancillary works, and unreasonably failed to address how the wind turbine would connect to the grid. He further complained that the council had not imposed an upper limit in the grant of planning permission and had unreasonably failed to handle his complaint in compliance with their published service standards. After obtaining detailed independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that the council had taken into account current advice on noise impact; that the report of handling was not defective in respect of the matters raised by Mr C and that provision for the ancillary works had been made in the planning consent conditions. We founds that the other matters raised constituted permitted development (development that does not need planning permission). Finally we found that the council had handled the complaint reasonably and without delay. Related reading View Decision Report 201300550 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018