SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the council’s decsion to build a prison facility next to their and others’ property. C’s complaint covers the council’s planning and environmental health services. Regarding the planning process, C considered the council had failed to safeguard neighbouring residents when granting planning permission. C said the council did not consider the proximity of the houses to the prison and the soil type present on the site. They also felt that a Noise Impact Assessment should be carried out. C said this resulted in damage to property, issues with noise and vibration, and the loss of house value. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council had carried out their planning obligations, in line with relevant legislation, guidance and policies. We recognised that C disagreed with the council’s position but concluded that the council handled the planning applications reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. In respect of the environmental health service, C said that the council failed to safeguard them during the construction of the new facility. They explained that they experienced noise and vibration issues. C said these vibrations caused visible damage to their property. We found that the council’s environmental health service acted reasonably in response to concerns raised by C. It was for the council to decide whether the threshold was met for noise and vibration from the construction site to be considered a statutory nuisance. We were satisfied that the council had provided reasonable explanations for why this threshold was not met. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202202657 as a PDF (24.55 KB) Updated: May 21, 2025

C is the parent of a child (A) who has conditions affecting their mobility and continence. C complained about how A's school was managing their personal care and how the council's disability social work department behaved towards C and A. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the Intimate Care Guidance in place at the time should have been updated and that having a written intimate care plan in place for A would have helped to ensure clarity regarding C's concerns about the management of A's personal care. We upheld C's complaint that the council's response to their concerns had not been reasonable. We found that the disability social work team poorly handled arrangements to speak to A and did not give C enough notice of their intentions. While the council had accepted that they had used inappropriate language to describe C, we found that they had not fully acknowledged this and the impact that this may have had. We upheld C's complaint that the disability social work department failed to behave in a reasonable manner towards them and A.

C complained about the way that the council had handled a planning application related to a development of new homes adjacent to their home. In particular, C expressed concern about the position and proximity of one of the plots to their home and the detriment this would cause in terms of overshadowing and loss of daylight. On first receiving C’s complaint, we considered that the council’s complaint response had not fully addressed the issues C had raised, and we therefore asked the council to write to C again at stage two of their complaint handling procedure. As C remained unhappy with the council’s response on the matters of overshadowing, and on their conservatory and kitchen/diner not being considered as habitable rooms when determining any loss of amenity, they returned their complaint to us for further review. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had managed the planning application in keeping with the relevant guidance and we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. However, we provided feedback to the council on the way in which the impact on amenity had been recorded in the Report of Handling, and in relation to retention of records, particularly when known objections had been raised. On the matter of complaint handling, we found that the council had unreasonably failed to respond to C’s original complaint on the planning application and we therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C raised a complaint on behalf of their advocacy partner (A). Following A’s arrest, C complained that A’s child (B) had been removed by social work services (SWS) from A’s care and placed with their non-custodial parent (D) without legal authority, against B’s express wishes and without taking account of A’s views. C also raised concerns that during B’s residency with D, SWS had not appropriately facilitated contact between A and B, had unreasonably requested A complete a parenting assessment and had failed to reasonably respond to A’s further concerns about B’s welfare. In their response, the council explained that D had enacted their parental rights and responsibilities (PRR) and assumed care of B when A had been arrested which they had helped support. They said that a range of professionals had been actively involved and utilised different approaches in obtaining B’s views. They noted that contact between A and B had not been straightforward, and that the regularity of contact had been disrupted by decisions of both A and B. They said that the requirement that A complete a parenting assessment had been reasonable given the longstanding issues of concern and more recent issues involving A and that the concerns A had raised about B’s welfare while in D’s care had been treated seriously and resulted in prompt attention. We took independent advice from two social work advisers. We found that there was a lack of recording of the discussions and the process by which the decision was taken to place B in D’s care and that there was a failure to convene a formal interagency referral discussion (IRD) to plan the approach on a multi-agency basis to assess the suitability of D as alternative care for B. We upheld the complaint as a result of the failings identified. We found that once B had moved to D’s care, their conflicting and changing views should have prompted a referral to independent advocacy sooner. However, the council had taken reasonable steps to ensure B

C complained to the council about the school their child (A) attends. A was transitioning from early years to primary school. As A had additional needs, a transition plan was required. C complained to the council that the school failed to put in place the appropriate transition arrangements in line with their obligations under the Additional Support for Learning (ASL) (Scotland) Act 2004; that they did not communicate appropriately with them about A's support and education and that they did not carry out an appropriate investigation of their complaint about the handling of a staged intervention meeting. We found that the council failed to meet the required timescales when putting in place the appropriate transition arrangements for A and as such we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We noted that there was reasonable mechanisms in place to keep C updated about A on a daily basis. While the council recognised that there were times that C's email correspondence was not responded to, we are satisfied with their overall communication with C and as such, we did not uphold the complaint. We also noted that the council carried out an appropriate investigation of C's complaint about the school's handling of a staged intervention meeting. The council consulted with all attendees and have demonstrated that they have reflected appropriately on the school's handling of the meeting. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to act appropriately, impartially or in line with their obligations when carrying out enforcement action against them. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council took appropriate action at specific points in the course of the enforcement process and had acted impartially. However, we found that the enforcement process took an unreasonable length of time to reach a conclusion and that the council could have carried out a more thorough assessment of the situation at an earlier stage. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. Mr and Mrs C also complained that the council had handled information provided by a third party inappropriately and placed an unreasonable amount of weight on it. We concluded that the evidence did not support Mr and Mrs C's view that the council considered information provided by a third party in an inappropriate or unreasonable manner. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. Finally, Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had failed to provide a reasonable level of communication with them during the enforcement process. This includes failing to meet with them despite their requests. We found evidence of good communication at certain points during the enforcement process. However, there was also clear evidence of several of Mr and Mrs C's requests to meet not being acknowledged or followed up by the council. This directly contradicted the council's position that there had been no requests to meet made by Mr and Mrs C or their agent. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that the council failed to take appropriate planning enforcement action within a reasonable timescale in relation to work undertaken near his home. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there were failings in the enforcement process, including unreasonable delays and unexplained inaction at certain points. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably or appropriately to the concerns he raised about the work carried out. We found that the content of the council's responses to Mr C's enquiries were broadly reasonable and factual. However, we identified several examples of Mr C's correspondence not being responded to in a timely manner, or at all. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received from a care home in the Stirling council area. Mrs C removed Mr A from the care home back to his family home. Mrs C had become increasingly concerned about Mr A's welfare in the care home and its suitability for a person with Mr A's particular needs. After Mr A returned to the family home, Mrs C complained about the care home to the Care Inspectorate who then investigated. When the council became aware of the Care Inspectorate report and findings they contacted Mrs C for more information. Subsequently the council initiated an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) Investigation using their authority under the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. The council investigation reported several months later and concluded that there was no evidence that Mr A was at risk of harm. Mrs C was unhappy with the conclusions of the council's report and also the quality and scope of their investigation. Mrs C complained to the council but remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the terms of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 only apply where a person is at possible risk of harm. By the time the council became involved, Mr A was living back at home and there was no suggestion he was at risk of harm, and so they should not have conducted their investigation as they did. We also found that the investigation did not properly consider and test all the evidence available and did not use an appropriate standard of proof (looking for near certainty rather than a balanced decision). We also found that the investigation of Mrs C's complaint by the council had not properly considered all of her concerns. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. We noted that the council had previously provided us with evidence of changes it had already made to its processes and training of staff. We made a number of furth

Mr C complained to the council after they restricted his access to council properties following allegations of aggressive behaviour towards staff. He considered these accusations were unreasonable, and that the decision to ban him from properties was disproportionate. Mr C also complained about a delay in the council's response to his request to appeal the decision. We found that the council had sufficient evidence that staff had felt intimidated by Mr C's behaviour to enact restrictions to his contact. We also found that they had reasonably put in place a point of contact through which Mr C could arrange access to facilities by prior appointment. We considered that the council had acted reasonably and within their discretion in making these decisions. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. In response to Mr C's complaint to them, the council had accepted that the delay he had experienced was unreasonable, provided an explanation for the causes of this, committed to ensuring this did not happen in future and apologised. Given this, we upheld Mr C's complaint about delays, but did not consider any recommendations were required. Related reading View Decision Report 201801313 as a PDF (23.89 KB) Updated: September 18, 2019

Mr C submitted a housing application to the council, which was refused. Mr C complained that the council responded to his request unreasonably. The council said that allowing Mr C's request would have meant that the housing waiting list was effectively bypassed, and that there was a high demand in that area for the type of housing Mr C had requested. We reviewed the relevant information and legislation. We found that the housing legislation gives the council discretion to consider what are reasonable grounds for refusing an application. It also allows for the council to refuse permission due to others waiting for housing who may have a greater need. We found that the explanation provided by the council was in line with the council's policies and with housing legislation. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801064 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C was first on the waiting list for a taxi plate from the council and had been on the list for many years. However, when a plate became available, Mr C did not receive it. He found that this had gone to a day-to-day manager who was not on the waiting list. Mr C complained that this decision was unreasonable. We found that the council had no record of the decision taken to issue the plate to someone not on the waiting list. The staff who dealt with it were unavailable and there were no records. We also found that there is no clear policy that indicates what should happen, or what factors should be considered when not following the normal process of allocating a newly vacant plate to someone on the waiting list. We decided it was unreasonable that the council had no record of the decision that was made or their reasoning for that decision. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C was fourth on the waiting list for a taxi plate from the council and had been on the list for many years. However, when a plate became available it was given to a day-to-day manager who was not on the waiting list. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained. We found that the council had no record of the decision taken to issue the plate to someone not on the waiting list. The staff who dealt with it were unavailable and there were no records. We also found that there was no clear policy in place which explains what should happen and what factors should be considered, when the council choose not to follow the normal allocation process. We considered that it was unreasonable that the council had no record of the decision that was made. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C is a council tenant and complained to the council about their failure to respond appropriately to his reports of his neighbour's anti-social behaviour. Mr C had been reporting anti-social behaviour for a number of years and the council started to take formal proceedings against the neighbour, however they stopped the action at a point, as they said that they received no further reports of anti-social behaviour from Mr C. Mr C disputed this and received confirmation from Police Scotland of a number of reports that they had passed onto the council after the point when they had stopped the formal proceedings against the neighbour. Mr C complained that the council failed to inform him that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour. In response to our investigation, the council acknowledged that they failed to investigate Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour. They also acknowledged that they should have informed Mr C that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour. The council confirmed that they were reviewing their anti-social behaviour procedures and they invited Mr C to a meeting so that they can apologise and discuss his concerns. We upheld Mr C's complaints and asked the council to provide evidence of the action they said they would take.

Mr C made reports to the council of breaches of planning control. Some action was undertaken but Mr C was concerned that correspondence with him, and the action being taken, stopped abruptly. After a gap of a few months, Mr C contacted the council again. He was told that the officer who had been responsible for his case had been absent from work on a long-term basis and that a review of their caseload had not uncovered the case Mr C was involved in as one requiring further action. The council apologised for this and began further action on the matter. Mr C continued to correspond and submitted information requests. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions and raised his complaints with us. Mr C complained to us that the council did not take reasonable action following his reports of breaches of planning control. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council's actions regarding the breaches of planning control Mr C reported were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint about this. Mr C also complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to his correspondence or his complaints. We found that there had been delays and confusion around providing responses to Mr C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, as the council had already taken steps to remedy these matters, we did not make any additional recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201700087 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that before a class reorganisation, the head teacher of her daughter (Miss A)'s school failed to consult in a reasonable way with Mrs C. Mrs C said that the need to consult was important because Miss A had previously been bullied and had health issues. Mrs C said that when she complained about this to the council, the council failed to handle her complaint reasonably. We investigated the complaint and found that the council had followed their stated policy. The head teacher informed parents of the forthcoming changes as soon as possible and meetings were held with them. While Mrs C was concerned about her daughter's health, there was no evidence that she had raised this or bullying issues with the school. Once the council became aware of these issues, they looked into them. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, the council's response to Mrs C's complaint was confused and took too long. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C was informed that his daughter (Miss A) would be allocated to a composite class (where two or more year groups are taught together) the following academic year. She was the only female member of her current class who was to be placed in the composite class. Mr C was concerned about the impact of this decision on Miss A and her learning. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to take into account the Scottish Government 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC) provisions. Mr C was also unhappy about the way the council handled his complaint. We contacted the Scottish Government who explained that, at present, the GIRFEC provisions were best practice. The council explained that best practice was followed when allocating children to composite classes. They said the relevant council policy makes allowances for headteachers to make decisions on the basis of individual needs. If a headteacher judges that a child's needs will not be met, they can exercise their discretion and move the child to a more appropriate class. We was satisfied that, in Mr C's case, the headteacher gave consideration to the relevant criteria for allocating children to composite classes and made their decision on that basis. Mr C also complained about the way his complaint had been handled. He said that his complaint was not properly understood or represented and that Miss A's previous teachers were not interviewed. He said that it was not demonstrated how his proposed alternative solution would have compromised the council's policy. Additionally, he said that the GIRFEC provisions were not identified as a consideration in the response to his complaint. Following detailed consideration of all the relevant documents and correspondence, we concluded that the handling of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and did not uphold his complaint to us. Related reading View Decision Report 201502748 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained to the council about the lack of support provided by her son's secondary school to meet his additional support needs. She also complained that her son was subject to ongoing bullying, harassment and intimidation by a member of staff. After making their own investigations, the council partially upheld her complaint about her son's support needs not being met as they found insufficient reviews had been carried out with her son, and his learning plan had not been adjusted to meet his needs. The council did not find any evidence to support allegations against the member of staff. Miss C was unhappy with this response and complained to us that the council had not reasonably addressed her complaints. We investigated and made further enquiries. We found that the council had made reasonable and appropriate enquiries into her concerns and, on the basis of the information available to them, reached a conclusion. While Miss C was unhappy with the outcome, there was no evidence to show that there had been an administrative fault in the council's consideration and, therefore, the merits of those decisions were not subject to review by us. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201405056 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about planning permission granted for an area of ground behind his house. He said that in determining the permission, the council relied on incorrect information and allowed a building to be erected that overlooked his house. He said that the council had dealt inconsistently with this application, and a site visit should have been made so that officers would have better understood the implications of the development on his home. He said that his complaints to the council about these matters had not been handled properly. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that while certain incorrect information had been reported in a council document, the responsibility for ensuring its accuracy lay with the developer and not with the council. Despite this, we found that the planning application was determined on its merits and, while a site visit was not mandatory, it was likely that one had been made. There was no evidence to suggest that the council had dealt inconsistently with this matter in comparison to its normal decision-making process and, indeed, it seemed that the council had gone further than necessary in considering the water management implications of the application. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure. Related reading View Decision Report 201305215 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a councillor, complained on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) that the council had not made a proper offer of housing to her and that they had not responded reasonably to his complaints about this. Ms A was designated as being homeless and under statutory legislation was entitled to two priority offers of accommodation. If she refused these, she would be placed on the standard housing waiting list. Mr C complained to us about the second offer of priority housing. Our investigation found that there was evidence that in making their offer the council followed their procedure, which complied with the relevant legislation. We also found evidence to suggest that Ms A refused the offer, although Mr C had disputed this. The council provided copies of internal documentation, as well as screen shots from their computer system and of a note of a phone conversation with Ms A. Both sides provided evidence that Ms A had appealed a decision by the council on the property in question. The documentation provided to applicants made it clear that appealing the decision would mean that the council would deem the property to have been refused and/or withdrawn. On balance, we considered that the offer had been duly made and then refused. On the matter of how the council dealt with Mr C's complaint, we found that at the time the council had a three-stage complaints process, which set out timescales by which each stage should be dealt with. The council did not adhere to those timescales and so we upheld the complaint. Since then, the council have introduced the new, nationally adopted, two-stage process based on the model procedure from our Complaints Standards Authority. The council also told us that they had reviewed their complaints resourcing and provided additional resources on a six-month trial basis, after which this would be reviewed.

A local councillor (Mr C) complained on behalf of two of his constituents that works on a neighbouring property had begun without the relevant permit being issued. He was also unhappy with the council's responses to the complaints he made on his constituents' behalf. Our investigation found that the council officer involved had verbally advised the contractor that the permit would be issued, and was then unexpectedly absent from work when the application was received. We did not uphold the complaint about this, as we decided that in the circumstances it was reasonable for the council to allow the work to progress before the permit was issued. We did uphold the complaint about the council's complaints handling because of the delay in providing Mr C with a response. As the council had taken action as a result of the complaint, by apologising and putting extra resource in place to ensure this did not happen again, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201300497 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of his planning application to convert a disused farm steading to provide five houses. He said they pursued two separate breach of condition notices in respect of land contamination without seeking the agreement of their planning panel, contrary to both the published enforcement charter and planning advice on enforcement. He also said that they did not respond adequately to requests for meetings and discussions, that council correspondence was misleading and misrepresentative and that he had to make an unnecessary waiver application. Mr C also said the council unreasonably issued letters of comfort (a document provided to satisfy a buyer that the local authority will not take action to have work remedied) to two property owners whilst at the same time pursuing him for a breach of condition notice for the entire site, and failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with their complaints procedure. We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints, as the adviser took the view that, in general, the council dealt with the planning matters appropriately. He did point out some areas where the council's actions had been less appropriate, for example where, although it was clearly Mr C's responsibility to comply with contaminated land conditions, the council did not take appropriate action to ensure compliance with the conditions before the houses were sold on. The adviser also said that the chief planning officer's failure to refer (in a letter to Mr C) to a letter of comfort for the fourth house was a significant oversight and meant that the letter misrepresented the situation. Although critical of the omission in the council's letter we were not, however, satisfied that this in itself required Mr C to submit a waiver application at that time. We did uphold Mr C's complaint about the complaints handling, as we found that it would have been reasonab

Mr C complained that the council failed to display appropriate warning signs about loose chippings on the road surface beside repairs they were carrying out. He also complained that they failed to accept liability for damage to his car and failed to deal with his claim within a reasonable timescale. We explained that we cannot consider the issue of liability as only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. We did, however, look to see whether the council had complied with their responsibilities in terms of warning signage. Mr C said that no signs were displayed, and provided photos which he felt proved this. The council explained that signs were displayed, but at some distance from the site. As there were two conflicting accounts of the signage, and little prospect of our obtaining sufficient evidence to establish which version was correct, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We did uphold Mr C's complaints about the delays in dealing with his claim and in the handling of his complaint. As the council had apologised and taken steps to address the problems with the claims process, we did not make any further recommendations about this. However, we did recommend that the council write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in their handling of his complaint.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to give him the correct information on how to appeal to the Sheriff Court. He said that this resulted in his appeal against a notice under Section 13 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 not being heard. Mr C lived on an estate of houses constructed before legislation (introduced in the 1980s) required a developer to lodge a road security bond. The developer at the time did not apply to the roads authority to have the roads and footpaths of the estate adopted and maintained at public expense. The residents association (of which Mr C was not a member) pursued the matter of adoption with the council. Mr C informed the council that, purely based on his own financial resources, he would be unable to support the adoption of his road. A majority of residents, however, voted for the adoption. A Section 13 notice was issued by the council under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. (A Section 13 Notice requires the owners of any land fronting or abutting a road to make up that road to the required standard.) This notice said that if the majority of households which fronted the road agreed to the road being adopted, the council would carry out the maintenance work on the residents' behalf and recover the costs. A second letter was issued the same day advising residents of the right of appeal against the notice to the local Sheriff Court. It said that they should do so within 28 days, and that if they wished to do so or were in any doubt as to the consequences of the notice then they should consult a solicitor immediately. Mr C said that he was given misleading information in a telephone conversation with an officer of the council that his right of appeal could be made in letter form to the sheriff clerk. Mr C said that he wrote to the sheriff clerk, but did not retain a copy of the letter. The sheriff clerk did not respond and, when several months later, Mr C contacted the sheriff clerk's office he was told that they had not received

Mr C's complaint arose from the financial assessment carried out by the council under the Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidelines after his elderly mother (Mrs A) required to enter a care home. The situation was complicated by the fact that Mr C's daughter and grandchild had previously moved in with Mrs A. The council changed their view on the arrangement, to Mrs A's financial disadvantage, and Mr C complained to the SPSO. When we got in touch with the council about Mr C's complaints, they asked for the opportunity that the matter be fully pursued through the social work complaints procedures. This took some time, but the recommendations of the complaints review committee were accepted by the relevant council committee and resulted in a full and positive outcome. Although not all of the eight matters that Mr C had asked us to look at were considered in the social work complaints procedures, in light of the satisfactory conclusion achieved we decided that in the circumstances it would not be proportionate to pursue the matter any further. Related reading View Decision Report 201001775 as a PDF (13.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was involved in an incident that led to the council banning him from fishing for five years. He appealed this in May 2009, but the ban was upheld. In January 2011, he complained about this to the council and when he was unhappy with their response he brought the complaint to SPSO. We did not look at the ban itself as Mr C had brought this to us too late (outside the normal 12 months within which we will look at a complaint). We did, however, look at his concerns about how the council handled his complaint. We found that Mr C disagreed with the council's decision, but that the council had looked into the matters he had raised. There was no evidence that they had done anything wrong when handling his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201004043 as a PDF (13.61 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018