Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A. She said that Ms A had agreed to move out of her property temporarily in order to allow repairs to be carried out. Ms C said that Ms A had been told after she moved out that she would not be allowed to return to the property. In addition she said the council had placed Ms A's possessions in storage without her consent and had not handled them appropriately. Ms C said Ms A had discovered her possessions had been placed in front of her house. She said this included personal possessions, exposing her to ridicule as photographs of them were placed on social media. Ms C said Ms A believed her goods had been intentionally damaged.

Our investigation found that, as Ms A had refused to allow the council access to the property, it was only following her move into temporary accommodation that it could be properly assessed. This assessment found that the property was not fit for habitation and posed a health risk due to severe neglect by Ms A. We found the council had acted appropriately by refusing to allow Ms A to return. Our investigation also found that the council had made it clear to Ms A that her goods would be placed in storage and that her agreement to this was on record. The council had acknowledged that some heavily soiled items of furniture had been left inappropriately outside, however, they had apologised for this. Storage had been provided as soon as possible and the evidence showed the contractors had been careful to identify personal effects, handing them over to the council for safekeeping.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to offer his sister (Ms A) the option of succeeding their father's tenancy on his council property after he had passed away. Mr C said his sister was living with their father prior to his death and should have been allowed to inherit their father's tenancy. Mr C said the council failed to follow their procedures in relation to his sister's application for succession to tenancy. He raised a number of issues in relation to this matter, including that the council failed to carry out house visits, checks and inspections to establish where Ms A had been living prior to their father's death; and failed to consider/accept evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application.

The council's procedure on succession to tenancy stated that the authenticity of the information provided by the applicant on their application form must be checked by carrying out additional investigations/checks. However, the investigations/checks referred to by Mr C and listed in the council's procedure were not mandatory and were a list of the types of checks that could be carried out. The council provided documentary evidence which showed that they carried out several of the checks/investigations suggested. We saw no evidence that the council failed to consider the evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application. The council advised that the information provided by Ms A had been taken into account. However, they said that other evidence, which included information provided by neighbours and investigations carried out by housing staff, was considered to be stronger and more reliable. It was not our role to determine what weight should be placed on any particular evidence: that was the discretionary decision of the council.

The evidence suggested that the council followed their procedure when dealing with Ms A's succession to tenancy application. Therefore, we did not consider that the council unreasonably failed to offer Ms A the option of succeeding her father's tenancy.

Summary

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.

Summary

Ms C and her family lived in a property that needed some work done that could not be carried out with tenants in the property. She was offered a temporary property to live in whilst the work was being carried out, but Ms C said she had asked if she could be considered for a permanent house move. She said that the council had initially agreed to this. When Ms C's request for a permanent housing transfer was turned down, she complained to us.

The council's tenancy policy states that a tenant may be relocated temporarily to allow the council to carry out work, but tenants will then return to their permanent tenancy following completion of work. The policy also sets out the (separate) system whereby points are allocated to determine eligibility for council housing. We found that the council had sought other options such as bed and breakfast accommodation for the duration of the works, which was beyond what they were required to do. We also found that Ms C and her partner were not eligible for a permanent housing transfer. Although we recognised that this was a stressful experience involving upheaval for Ms C and her family, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, following a flood caused by a burst pipe in an upstairs owner-occupied property, the council delayed in moving her and her family to suitable alternative emergency accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. She was also unhappy that a member of staff had ended a phone call, accusing her and her husband of using inappropriate language. She was also dissatisfied when the council told her that her refusal to lift the laminate flooring in her home had caused the drying process to take substantially longer and resulted in additional damage.

We considered the points she had raised, and found that the council had offered suitable wheelchair-accessible temporary bed and breakfast accommodation on the day of the flood. We noted that the council did not consider that moving house was necessary but had continued to offer temporary bed and breakfast accommodation which Mrs C and her husband refused as being unsuitable, in part because the family pet could not be accommodated. We also noted that Mrs C had initially refused (partly on the basis of advice from their insurers) to agree to the laminate flooring being lifted, and that the council's surveyors were of the view that the delay in lifting the laminate flooring had caused water to filter into the walls and cause additional damage. The council's policy on laminate flooring places responsibility for the lifting and replacement of laminate flooring with the tenant. Finally, although we were unable to determine exactly what was said in the phone call when Mrs C and her husband were accused of using inappropriate language, we did review the council's unacceptable actions policy which gives staff the authority to end calls where they consider the language being used is not appropriate.

As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to assess a planning application for a house on neighbouring land correctly and consistently with previous decisions taken, and that they delayed in making relevant drawings available on their online planning portal. We also investigated Mr C's complaint that he was not given an adequate opportunity to provide further information in support of his complaint under the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that there were some areas where Mr C's complaint about the assessment of the planning application were justified, particularly in relation to the accuracy of the planning officer's report to committee. However, there was no evidence of fault in the way the planning application was handled, and this was consistent with previous decisions about the site. We also concluded that the council's explanation about timescales for uploading information to their portal was reasonable, and we did not support Mr C's complaint of delay.

When we investigated how the council had handled Mr C's complaint, we found that they had complied with their procedure. They had made it clear to him that there was an approaching deadline, and we considered it would have been reasonable for Mr C to contact the council to seek more time to provide information, if necessary.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A that a warning letter she received from the council in October about her alleged behaviour was the first such notification she received. Ms A said that although she requested a meeting to discuss the situation, she was not given the opportunity to provide her side of the story. Ms C said that Ms A was being victimised and ignored.

We found that there was evidence that Ms A had been warned on occasions before October, and she had referred to this correspondence in her own letters. Ms A had also been given details of the complaints made against her, and been invited to call or meet to discuss them. She did not do so. We found no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to act in accordance with their anti-social behaviour policy, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, told us the council were unreasonably imposing a weekly charge for a shower. There was a shower in the flat when she moved in. Ms C said that when she signed the tenancy she assumed that the weekly shower charge was just a normal rent charge. When she asked the council about it she was told the shower could not be removed and replaced with a bath. Ms C felt she had paid unnecessarily for a basic shower which she could have had installed herself for a much lower cost.

We found the council's shower installation programme was designed to offer choice to tenants, at no cost to the council. Councils have a limited budget to spend and must decide how to use their resources carefully. It was the council's policy to impose a weekly charge for the shower installed in Ms C's home. The council provided details of the calculations, which covered a 30-year period, on which the shower charge was based.

We found that Ms C exercised choice in taking the tenancy on and that the council made her aware that there was a weekly charge for the shower which was additional to the rent. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way that the council dealt with various planning applications concerned with drilling and the exploration and development of coal bed methane from early 2007 until 2009, when an application was submitted for the formation of a gas compressor station. These applications were all approved subject to conditions. Then, from 2011 until 2013, further applications were made to vary the timescales of the permissions that had been granted earlier.

Mrs C complained that the council should not have considered the applications on an individual basis and that this should have been considered to be a major development. She also believed that planning officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the matters nor did they ensure appropriate public consultation. In reply, the council said that due process had been followed throughout.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation found that the council had considered the applications in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. Similarly, they followed legislation when varying the timescales applying. There was no evidence to suggest that the developments constituted a major development or that officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the applications. All the planning applications had been publicly advertised and requirements for neighbour notification fulfilled.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A about the development of a property near to Mr A's house. During the building works, the council was alerted to the possibility that the property was not being built in accordance with the planning permission. It was later established that the property was not built in accordance with the planning permission, and the council issued a section 33A notice (a form of enforcement action which requires a new planning application to be submitted for consideration).

Mr C complained that the council had not taken action during construction when they were first made aware of the breach. Mr C also complained that the council had then not taken reasonable enforcement action once the breach was established.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. They concluded that it was reasonable of the council not to take any action during construction until they had established whether or not a breach had occurred. The adviser was also satisfied that the council had the discretion to choose whether to take enforcement action (which they did) and what form that it should take. Although the council did not intend to take any further enforcement action, this was a discretionary decision for the council to make. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.