SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the handling of two planning enforcement complaints which they had brought to the council in regards to Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) installed at two neighbouring properties, which were affecting their enjoyment of their property due to the noise generated. C complained that the council had taken too long to determine that planning applications were required and that the council’s communication had been inconsistent and slow. C also complained that the time to determine the retrospective planning applications was too long. The council admitted that their initial handling of the enforcement complaints was inconsistent and slow. They apologised, restructured the team and provided reminders as to when planning was required for ASHPs. As regards the determination of the planning applications, they advised that they were waiting for Noise Impact Assessments (NIAs) from the applicants which were never provided. The applications were due to be determined by the Planning Committee in June 2024. However, just prior to this C commissioned their own NIA which needed to be robustly considered by Environmental Health Services. The applications were considered in February 2025. We found that given the ASHPs were potentially impacting C’s amenity, due to noise, it took the council too long to investigate the planning enforcement complaints and to decide that planning applications were required. It also took them too long to determine the planning applications. We upheld the complaint on this basis.

C reported concerns to the council’s environmental services department about smoke pollution over a number of years as a result of their neighbour burning bonfires and a wood-burning stove. C was dissatisfied with the lack of action taken by the council and submitted a complaint. C considered that the council’s investigation of their concerns was insufficiently detailed, failed to take account of available evidence, and dismissed factors which C considered important. C also complained that the council’s response contained a number of inaccuracies. We found that the council did not meet the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. However, the complaint was raised and investigated during the COVID-19 pandemic and C was advised from the outset that timescales were being affected. The council also apologised for this delay. We considered the overall time taken to have been understandable in the circumstances. However, we did note that the council failed to communicate to C that their complaint was being considered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure, despite initially advising that it would be reviewed at stage 1 and that C was not provided with updates when they asked. It is also clear that there was ongoing communication between C and environmental services throughout the investigation period, correspondence sent and received via a councillor on C's behalf and Freedom of Information requests made. This all contributed to an overall confused chain of correspondence. Generally, we were satisfied that C’s complaints were taken seriously and an investigation was carried out before the council’s response was issued. However, we found that the investigation sought mainly to respond to the complaint, rather than get to the root cause and attempt to resolve C’s dissatisfaction. The council’s response to C’s complaint reiterated their previously-stated position on whether they considered statutory nuisance had been witnessed. However, C’s complaint refe

C complained about the actions of South Lanarkshire Council in relation to work that they carried out to a property adjoining C’s home. The work related to the change of position of a gas boiler flue. C considered that this has had an adverse effect upon them and their property. The council did not identify any failings, but changed the orientation of the flue as a result of C’s concerns. C remained unhappy. C complained that, as a result of the change in position, the flue discharged dangerous gasses into their home. C also complained that the council had failed to respond to their complaint in line with their published Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP). We found that the council had acted reasonably regarding the change in position of the flue. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we found multiple failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We upheld this part of the complaint.

C is the parent of two children, A and B, who complained about the council's handling of child protection concerns raised in respect of A and B. C is concerned that due to lack of proper procedure, decisions made by the Court in respect of contact between their ex-partner and the children were based on inaccurate information provided in social work reports. The council's own investigation of the complaint identified that there was inadequate recording of the child protection concerns reported by C and that a welfare report compiled by the social worker was not of an acceptable standard. We took independent advice from an experienced social work adviser. We found that there were failings to make a verbatim record of the child protection concerns raised by C, that the welfare report prepared for the Court was below an acceptable standard, and that there was a poor record of the interviews conducted with the children. Based on the evidence available, it was agreed that given that the children did not make a further disclosure to the social worker when interviewed, there were no grounds to pursue a child protection investigation. However, on balance, we concluded that, in light of the failings identified, there was a failure in the overall handling of the child protection concerns raised and as such, we upheld this part of C's complaint. C also complained about the council's handling of their complaint. We found this to be reasonable and did not uphold this part of the complaint.

C, parent of A, complained to the council that during A's time at school the council had failed to address bullying and racist incidents. The complaint raised a number of incidents which C considered had not been investigated or responded to appropriately, and that as a result A was unsafe and their education had been impacted. C also complained that the council failed to offer any assistance as promised, from an educational psychologist, which was required to help A in response to the racist bullying, including the aftermath of an assault which occurred in school. The council, in their response to the complaint, said that records demonstrated actions taken by staff to address bullying and racist incidents reported to them were timely, appropriate and in line with council policy. The educational psychologist met with C and a commitment was given that they would meet A in person. Two appointments were arranged but A was absent for one, and for the second A was in hospital. The council acknowledged follow-up was not offered, and identified a breakdown in communication in rearranging the meeting. We found that the school in question had investigated and taken action with respect to incidents of bullying and racist bullying. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We found that there was evidence that the council had appropriately considered support for A involving an educational psychologist, however following an initial meeting the council failed to appropriately communicate subsequent appointments and failed to re-arrange the appointment for A to meet an educational psychologist. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. In accordance with our powers to consider complaints handling, we found that the council's response to C's complaint in relation to bullying should have been more detailed and specific and was therefore unreasonable. We made recommendations to the council in this regard.

C complained that the council, as the building control and planning authority, failed to take reasonable action to address an alleged non-compliance with building control standards legislation and an ongoing breach of a planning condition in relation to the discharge of wastewater at the development site where they resided. C's own property had been built a number of years previously. An issue arose regarding the discharge of wastewater from new houses which were being built at the development site. We took independent advice from a building control adviser and a planning adviser. We found that the developer initially planned to connect the properties at the development site to the sewer network and that building warrants were approved based on their proposals in this respect. When it became apparent that the sewer network required upgrading works before the new houses could be connected to it, we considered that the council undertook reasonable steps to ensure that the revised plan of using a septic tank as a temporary measure was acceptable in building standards terms. We were satisfied that the council sought comments from relevant authorities (Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water), both of whom were satisfied with the proposed temporary solution. We were also satisfied that provisions were made in later building warrant approvals to ensure that the developer took responsibility for decommissioning the temporary system and connecting to the sewer network once the upgrading works were completed. In relation to C's complaint that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to an ongoing breach of a planning condition attached to the development, we were satisfied that, whilst the council had a range of enforcement powers available to them, it was a matter for their discretion as to whether or not to take formal action, to allow the breach to remain, or to take less formal action with a view to reaching a resolution. We found

Mr C's child's nursery raised child protection concerns with social work. Mr C complained about the conduct of the social work investigation. He considered that social work were prejudiced in their actions and manipulated facts to justify their decision to investigate the child protection concerns. We took independent social work advice, which confirmed that the concerns raised warranted investigation. We concluded that the decision to start a child protection investigation was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, the council might have considered whether there were grounds for the nursery to have acted on the information they had sooner. We fed this back to the council. Mr C also complained that the communication with him and his wife (Mrs C) during the investigation was inadequate. We were advised that it is normal practice for social work not to communicate with the accused parent in case this jeopardises the investigation. We concluded that the communication with Mr C during the investigation was not inadequate. However, we considered that the communication with Mrs C was inadequate. We noted that she did not appear to have a full understanding of the situation and that social work should have taken earlier steps to pursue the use of an interpreter. Also, when she was told that their child was going to be interviewed by the police and social work at a Joint Investigative Interview (JII), she was told of this over the telephone rather than in person, and she (or someone else familiar to her child) was not given the opportunity to accompany her child to the police station for support. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mr C also complained that they did not receive a clear explanation of the specific nature of the child protection concerns. We noted that Mrs C's lack of understanding of the situation appeared to include the nature of the allegations. When social workers visited to share the details at the conclu

Ms C's adult son (Mr A) has complex care needs and lives at home with her. Ms C complained that the council's care budget unreasonably relied on her being the second person providing him with care. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council had allocated Mr A a care budget, which was equal to the cost of commissioning him support, such as a placement at a residential home. We found that this approach was reasonable and it complied with the relevant statutory guidance. We found that if Ms C was unable to provide Mr A with care, it would have been necessary to consider changing how his care hours were spread during the week or consider a residential placement. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained about how the council responded to her enquiry about getting a different type of shower chair for Mr A. The council refused her request, as they said his current shower chair was meeting his clinical need. We took independent advice from an occupational therapist. We found that there was insufficient evidence that Mr A's current shower chair was meeting his clinical need and that Ms C was not clearly told the reasons for refusing her request. We considered that the council had not responded reasonably to Ms C's enquiry. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

A number of years ago, Mr C bought a new build property from a housing developer. Mr C had work done to his property and the structural steel beams were exposed. Mr C was concerned that they did not have adequate fire protection and that the construction differed from the plans approved by the council. Mr C complained that the council had failed to meet their obligations under the relevant building standards regulations by issuing a completion certificate for his property. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner. We took independent advice from a building standards adviser. We found that it was appropriate that the council issued a completion certificate, as they took reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the mandatory building standards had been met. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner by providing technically detailed and competent information. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201900196 as a PDF (24.21 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mr and Mrs C complained that their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been properly investigated by the school they attended. They felt their child had been made to feel that they were at fault and that in respect of two separate incidents, the school's investigation had been inadequate and had failed to follow the correct procedure. Mr and Mrs C also felt their complaint to the council about this had not been properly investigated and there had been no meaningful scrutiny of the school's actions. It was explained to Mr and Mrs C that we could not re-investigate the claims of bullying, or determine whether bullying had taken place. We could look at whether the correct procedures were followed by the school and subsequently the council in response to the concerns Mr and Mrs C had raised. We found that there was a clear record of Mr and Mrs C's reports of incidents of bullying. The school had 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 found that the council's investigation had considered all the available evidence and that the decision it had reached was reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold either complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808490 as a PDF (24.27 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Ms C complained that the council failed to appropriately investigate an incident that caused injury to her child at school. Ms C also said that they failed to handle her complaint reasonably. We found a number of failures by the council in following their internal health and safety policy. They had failed to take witness statements at the time of the incident, sections of the forms in question had not been completed and there was a delay of a number of weeks in completing the form. There was also insufficient contemporaneous evidence to support what was recorded on the forms and on further investigations that the council told us were carried out; this meant that they were unable to demonstrate they had drawn fully formed conclusions. We also found that the council had made errors in escalating Ms C's complaints, and failed to consistently acknowledge the seriousness of the injury. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Mr C complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council failed to deal properly with a development on land adjacent to that which Mr A owned. Mr C said that the council failed to carry out a traffic impact assessment (TIA), to confirm if a road was adopted and to deal with his complaint properly. We took independent planning advice. We found that the council were entitled as a roads authority to exercise their discretion over requesting updates to the TIA. In addition, the council had imposed a planning condition to regulate traffic flow. We also found that the council had provided Mr C and Mr A with all the information they were legally required to hold and they had acted reasonably. We considered that the council could demonstrate that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaint, and that his disagreement with the council's decision was not evidence of maladministration. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201709023 as a PDF (23.77 KB) Updated: August 21, 2019

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow their procedures in response to reports that a tenant had breached their tenancy agreement due to anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had taken steps in response to the reports they had received. The council were reliant on neighbours to inform them of incidents at the time so that could build an accurate picture of the type and frequency of behaviour occurring. In the absence of further reports and evidence of anti-social behaviour, the council was not able to take legal action to recover the tenancy. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801358 as a PDF (23.61 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mr C complained to the council, on behalf of his sister (Ms A), about the company that the council contracted to provide her care. Mr C said that they inappropriately charged her for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for staff, that they had failed to evidence that Ms A received a warm home discount each year and had unreasonably failed to calculate and refund costs associated with the use of Ms A's phone by staff. Mr C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his enquiries. The council confirmed that a refund was being looked into regarding the PPE and that a refund had been issued for one year of phone bills, with five years in total to be assessed. This remained unresolved and Mr C brought his complaint to us. The council advised a different care provider was contracted for the first two years of care. They did not have evidence of the phone bills or PPE for that period as the company in question has since ceased to exist. The council have since provided Ms A with a refund for three years for the PPE. They provided three years of phone bills but did not offer to issue a further refund in this regard. We considered that the council unreasonably failed to calculate and refund costs for the PPE and use of Ms A's phone by staff. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint and asked the council to examine the full five years in question. In relation to the warm home discount, the council were able to evidence that Ms A had correctly received this. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Finally, we considered that the council had failed to provide a reasonable response to Mr C's enquiries. We noted that the company providing care to Ms A delayed in their response to the council but considered that the delay in responding to his enquiries was unacceptable. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C contacted the council's environmental services about a spillage of domestic heating oil (kerosene) in the area near to his home. Mr C had the spillage completely cleaned from his property but his neighbour did not. Mr C was concerned about the potential for recontamination of his property, and about the smell of kerosene, from his neighbour's land. He contacted the council, asking them to take action to deal with his neighbour's failure to have the spilt kerosene cleaned up. The council said that the clean-up was the insurance company's responsibility. Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response to his concerns and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that Mr C's complaint of smell from the kerosene spillage at his neighbour's property could potentially have been deemed a statutory nuisance. The council were unable to provide us with evidence that they had carried out a robust investigation into Mr C's complaint of smell, to determine if it was valid. Instead, it appeared that the council relied on a report prepared by environmental specialists working for Mr C's insurers, in relation to the clean-up at his property. We also found that what the council told Mr C about the matter was, on occasion, at odds with their internal communication. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained to the council about various matters related to the sale of public land to private individuals. We found that the council's actions had been reasonable in relation to most of the complaints Mr C raised. However, we did uphold a complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to address the impact of proposed development on land designated as greenspace in a delegated report, but did not consider that this had any significant impact on the ultimate decision to grant the application. We also upheld a complaint that the council had not responded reasonably to complaints raised in a particular email. We found that they did not address two specific points and did not discuss the need for an extended timescale with Mr C or provide him with a revised timescale for response.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow their policies and procedures before raising court action against him for recovery of rent arrears. He complained that the council had failed to take his family circumstances into account when deciding to raise court action against him. We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures, with one minor exception for which the council had already apologised. Mr C had not made any contribution to his rent over more than two months, and although he had offered to pay some rent at the end of the third month of the tenancy, we found that the council were entitled to find this offer unreasonable. We also noted that the council had agreed to review the court action if regular payments were commenced. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201701258 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council delayed telling her about an incident involving her child (child A) and their teacher. The incident occurred just prior to the start of the summer holidays and Mrs C was not notified until after the start of the new school year in the autumn. Mrs C felt this was unreasonable because her child's communication needs meant that they could not simply tell her what had happened and, as a result, she was unaware of the incident for around ten weeks. The council did not feel that there had been an unreasonable delay in informing Mrs C. They said their decisions were risk assessed carefully, communicated appropriately and took account of the wellbeing and rights of employees. The council felt that the school had acted appropriately and in line with their confidential reporting and disciplinary procedures. They also explained that, as the summer holidays would prevent direct contact between child A and the teacher for seven weeks, there was no risk directly linked to the incident at that time. Our role was to consider the council's administrative handling of the matter. Our review of their procedures found that the council's internal documents about reporting, investigating and dealing with such incidents did not detail the process for notifying parents of a possible incident. Although we recognised the balancing act the council had in the circumstances, we also recognised that Mrs C, as a parent, wanted to know about this incident promptly. While the evidence indicated that the council had followed their confidential reporting and disciplinary procedures, we felt the fact that the lack of any mention of notifying parents within those documents was a shortcoming. On that basis we upheld this complaint.

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mr A who is a kinship carer for his nephew (child B). Following the death of child B's mother, Mr A stepped forward and agreed to became his nephew's carer when no other family members were available. Mr A applied to the council for kinship care allowance (financial support which is available for those who are caring for a child who has a looked after status, who has previously had looked after status, who has been placed with involvement from the local authority or who is at risk of becoming looked after). The council did not award the allowance on the basis that child B had not been previously looked after and was not at risk of being looked after. Mrs C complained that this decision was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser noted that the council did not carry out any assessment of Mr A or child B's needs. It was the adviser's view, which we accepted, that had Mr A not come forwards, child B would have undoubtedly have been received into care. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to the council.

Mr C complained about the safety of his son (child A), at his former school. Child A has complex support needs, and Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate an incident involving his son leaving the school grounds unaccompanied. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to carry out a risk assessment of security at the school and had failed to appropriately follow child A's management plan in relation to his needs. In addition, Mr C raised concerns about a lack of communication and the way the council handled a placement request for his son. We found that the council had carried out a reasonable investigation of the incident involving child A leaving the school grounds unaccompanied, and had taken action to try to prevent a similar situation arsing in the future. As such, we did not uphold the complaint. We were also satisfied that risk assessments had been carried out and so we did not uphold the complaint that the council had failed to carry out a risk assessment of security at the school. However, we were concerned that there was no documentary evidence of the rationale used by the council in reaching decisions arising from the risk assessment, particularly relating to supervision arrangements. We were also concerned that the roles and duties of non-teaching staff in relation to the supervision of pupils was not documented. We made recommendations in relation to these concerns. We were provided with a copy of the relevant management plan detailing child A's needs and we found no evidence that this was not being followed. As such, we did not uphold the complaint relating to the management plan. We were also provided with evidence which demonstrated there had been extensive communication with Mr C and we did not uphold the complaint about a lack of communication. Finally, we found no evidence that the placement request had not been handled in line with the Education, Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004 and did not u

Mr C had fallen into arrears with his council tax. The council referred Mr C's debt to a sheriff officer and debt collection service, however they later withdrew the account and advised Mr C that they were beginning sequestration proceedings (the action of taking legal possession of assets). Mr C said that he felt that the council's approach was unsympathetic and that they were not understanding of his circumstances. Mr C complained to us that the council had not appropriately informed him of the outstanding council tax payment from a number of years previously. He also complained that the council had failed to advise him of his entitlement to council tax reduction and that they had unreasonably failed to honour his agreement with the debt collection agency. We found that the council's records show that Mr C was in contact with them for a number of years regarding his outstanding debt, so it was evident that he was aware of it. We also found that the council had advised Mr C to apply for council tax reduction on a number of occasions over a period of years. We also found that the council sent a recorded delivery letter to inform Mr C that they were pursuing sequestration. After they received confirmation that the letter had been received, the council cancelled the account with the debt collection agency. We considered that the council had followed the correct procedure in this regard. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201700677 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained about the way the council dealt with her complaint to them. She was also was unhappy that the council had issued warnings following an investigation into allegations of anti-social behaviour. We were satisfied that the council demonstrated that a fair and balanced investigation into complaints of anti-social behaviour had taken place and that their discretionary decision to issue warnings was in line with their procedures. We were also satisfied that the council could demonstrate that a full investigation of Miss C's subsequent complaint had taken place and that their letter explaining their decision was reasonable. As a result of our findings, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201602803 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the council about the home care package provided to her father. Although her complaint had been upheld by a Complaint Review Committee (CRC), Ms C was unhappy that several of the outcomes she had requested had been deemed to be outwith the CRC's remit. Ms C said they remained unanswered and that, as she had completed the social work complaints process, the council were refusing to discuss the matter further. We found that CRCs have a broad remit and that there were no obvious grounds for ruling the outcomes Ms C requested as outwith the competence of the committee. We also found that one of the outcomes Ms C sought related to the provision of care to her father by an outside agency. Whilst the CRC was correct to state that they could not give directions to such an organisation, Ms C had been repeatedly promised by the council that this support would be progressed. It was unreasonable for the council not to have followed up on this, given that the CRC stated it could not reach a decision on it. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Miss C complained about the council regarding the allocation of a previous tenancy. She told us that she had repeatedly made clear to the council that she could only accept offers in one specific area very close to her family due to threats of violence from friends of her ex-partner. She said that the council insisted that she expand her areas of preference and this resulted in an offer in an area where she felt unsafe but that she felt forced to accept, as the council had told her she would not receive another offer if she refused. However, she had to leave this property after ongoing disputes with one of her neighbours, a friend of her ex-partner. On investigation, we did not find any evidence that the council had applied pressure to Miss C to extend her area preferences. It was clear from the documentation, which Miss C had signed to confirm her agreement, that the property offered was in an area she had initially requested, before adding further areas. The council was also able to evidence that they had given due consideration to the suitability of the offer before approaching Miss C and do not appear to have held any information to suggest it was unsuitable. Finally, there was evidence that the council had provided clear information on Miss C's right of appeal, which confirmed that she would receive a further offer if her appeal was successful or be able to accept the original offer if it was not. However, Miss C chose not to appeal the offer. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700499 as a PDF (11.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us that the council's report on a planning application to their planning committee contained a number of factual inaccuracies. We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that any inaccuracies in the report were minor and were not significant to the overall assessment of the application. The report did not mislead the members of the committee and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the manner in which the council had handled an economic statement that the planning applicant had submitted to support the application had been inadequate and we made a recommendation to the council in relation to this. Mr C also complained to us that the council had not reasonably handled his enquiries to them about why they had notified residents that the previous application had been withdrawn after they were notified of the new application. We found that the council's response to Mr C on this matter should have included more information about why the problem occurred and the steps they had taken to try to prevent this happening again. We upheld this aspect of this complaint. We also made a recommendation to the council about the letter used to advise planning objectors of the withdrawal of an application in expectation of the submission of a new one.