Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Miss C and her partner are in receipt of council tax benefit. The council notified Miss C that she had council tax arrears from three years before of more than £1700, which had to be paid within seven days. When she contacted the council they told her that the arrears had arisen because she and her partner had not told the council about a change in their household income at that time, resulting in an overpayment of council tax benefit. Miss C complained to us about the way the council handled her enquiries. She said that she was not reassured that the council were taking steps to improve their customer services, although they agreed that she had not received an acceptable standard of service. Miss C wanted an assurance that the council were committed to providing a valid, user friendly and reliable service.

We examined the original demand notices issued to Miss C and her partner and found that there had been various changes to the amounts demanded because of changes to their benefit entitlement, but nothing to suggest that the arrears had arisen from an error on the council's part. We were satisfied from our investigation that the council had looked into the matter properly under their complaints procedure, had identified that there had been shortcomings in their customer service, and had made a commitment to improve certain areas. Although some of these changes were not yet in place, we were assured that in the long term the council were committing a significant amount of money to radically improve the ways a customer would be able to access council services. These included more efficient online services and a review of business processes to ensure that they were customer focused. On the understanding that it would be relatively easy to provide further information to the public through the council's website, we asked them to consider taking steps in the short term to provide additional information about the full options available where payment of council tax is outstanding.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to reschedule road resurfacing work. He complained that they had not recorded the feedback on which their decision was based, or recorded the decision. Our investigation, however, found no evidence that the council had any obligation to record every piece of feedback received or every operational decision made.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to follow the appropriate tendering and procurement process for communal repairs to her close. She said that they had ignored a report requiring them to re-tender due to a lack of competitive quotes, as only two of the four companies approached had responded. She also said that the council costs were far higher than her privately obtained quotes, and that they had misled her by asking her to submit quotes that could not in fact be used as the suppliers were not on the council's approved list of contractors.

Our investigation found that the council had already apologised for the confusion about which contractors could form part of the tendering process, and had produced a new information leaflet, setting out the statutory repair process clearly for private residents. We also found that although the report on the tendering process recommended re-tendering, there was no requirement for the council to accept this, and that re-tendering could have resulted in higher costs. We did, however, criticise the council for poor record-keeping, as the decision-making audit trail was unclear.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his repair request after he reported a leaking bath. He told us that the council had installed a new bath at his property, but it moved when he was standing in it to shower. He also said that there was a gap between the bath and the tiles, which allowed water to penetrate. He wanted the council to replace the remaining tiles in his bathroom with waterproof boarding. Mr C said the council had taken too long to come and assess the repair and that the repair they proposed was inadequate.

We found that the council had acted reasonably when Mr C reported dampness in his bathroom. They sent a maintenance officer to the property within two days and decided that the repair Mr C wanted was not warranted. The council offered to repair a section of flooring under the bath and to reseal around the bath, but Mr C had refused to allow this repair to be carried out. When Mr C later reported a leak in the bathroom, the council responded within a day and a leak at the sink was identified and repaired. We found the council had acted reasonably and in accordance with their policy on repairs. We concluded that, although Mr C was entitled to hold and express his view about the kind of repair required, that it was ultimately for the council to determine how best to carry this out.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council charged her for work carried out at her former home after she left it. Our investigation found, however, that Miss C had not in fact complied with the terms of her tenancy agreement when she left the property, and that the council had to resort to their abandonment procedure to bring the tenancy to an end. They found the garden in an unacceptable state and had to carry out works to clear it and make it safe. We found that the council had acted reasonably, and in accordance with their policies and procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's administration of his application for housing benefit was unreasonable. He felt, for various reasons, that they had made unreasonable demands for information from him and his wife. Because their circumstances had changed, he and his wife were asked to complete a case review form. As a result of the information they included on the form, the council asked for further information about the accounts he and his wife had their state pensions paid into. Mr C was unhappy about having to provide them with this and did not send it at first. The council had given an interim award of housing benefit, but stopped it when they did not receive the further information they had requested. When Mr C provided it, the council processed his application and backdated the award.

After considering all the relevant paperwork, we did not find any evidence that the council had administered Mr C's application unreasonably. Under the relevant regulations (the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006), they were entitled to ask for this information. Although there were a couple of instances where the council could have been clearer about the information they wanted, they provided clear and correct information to Mr C at least eight times. Unfortunately, it was the delay in providing the council with that information that caused the delay in him and his wife receiving their housing benefit award.

Summary

Mrs C's council tax benefit claim was identified for review and the council wrote to her asking for information. Mrs C complained about the way they handled the claim, complaining that they had not administered it in line with the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006. She questioned the frequency with which she was being asked to provide payslips, and said she thought that it would be easier to calculate once a year using her P60 and business accounts, in line with the Regulations. She told us that after she complained before, there had been an agreement that she would be assessed every 12 months, but the council had now cancelled the benefit because she questioned why they wanted payslips so frequently. She also questioned why the claim was identified for a review, and the notice period for providing information.

After investigating her concerns, we were satisfied that the council's actions were reasonable and in line with the Regulations and the Department for Work and Pensions best practice guidance. We saw no evidence that anything went wrong in the council's handling of the claim, and considered it was reasonable in the circumstances for the council to request proof of earnings when they did, within the deadlines they did, and that they had explained on a number of occasions why they were doing this. We found that the council took Mrs C's concerns seriously, fully investigated, took appropriate action to try to resolve her complaint, and fully explained their position. Finally, we were satisfied that the council maintained adequate records in connection with the administration of the claim when she complained before

Summary

Mr C entered into pre-application discussions with the council with a view to building a house behind his property. About three months later, after receiving an email from an area planning officer, Mr C submitted an application for planning consent. This was the subject of a 'report of handling' which, in terms of the council's procedures, was put before local councillors who had the ability to refer the matter to a committee for a decision. The councillors did not refer the application, and it was left to council officers to determine the application under delegated powers. They refused the application. Mr C could then have asked for the matter to be placed before the local review board, but before requesting this he complained to the council about the decision. He said that the council planning officers did not provide reasonable advice at the pre-application stage, and that the council's report of handling was not reasonably fit for purpose.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the pre-application advice given to Mr C was reasonable. The adviser also said that he was satisfied that the report of handling was reasonably fit for purpose. He noted that the council had admitted to one error but he agreed that this would not have altered the officers' recommendation for refusal or misled the councillors who might otherwise have called in the application to be decided by a committee.

Summary

Miss C complained to a housing association about a foul smell in her property. She told us the smell was so bad she had to sleep in her living room and throw away clothes and bedding that the smell had permeated. Miss C said that this was not properly investigated in a reasonable timescale and she believed that she should have been rehoused whilst the problem was investigated.

Our investigation found that the association had made reasonable efforts, albeit unsuccessfully, to identify the source of the smell by involving drainage specialists, environmental health and a pest controller. The smell went away after a period of three weeks. We found the time taken by the association was reasonable. We also found that they had decided, as they were entitled to, that whilst unpleasant the property remained habitable and so there was no requirement to help Miss C find alternative accommodation.

Summary

Mr C complained that a GP provided him with inadequate care and treatment. Mr C visited the GP because he had pain on the left side of his head. He said the GP diagnosed shingles and prescribed inappropriate medication, an antidepressant.

We looked at Mr C's medical records and took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. In the absence of any independent evidence from the consultation, however, we could not reach a definitive finding on exactly what was said there. We found that the medical records showed that the GP had noted that there was no shingles rash present, and had treated Mr C for nerve pain. We also found that the medication prescribed was appropriate for this, as although it is an antidepressant, it is also frequently used to treat nerve pain. We concluded that the GP provided a reasonable level of care and treatment in the circumstances.