Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C moved into a house in a rural location. One plot in a development next to his home was not developed at the time, and was the subject of two planning consents in 2006 for a change in house type. In early 2011 another application was made, this time to build a two storey house. The applicant described this as a modification of one of the 2006 consents, and the council described it this way when notifying neighbours of the application.

Mr C was unhappy with the council's actions in respect of his representations about the applications and their handling of the 2011 application. He complained that because a planning officer did not return his calls he was disadvantaged when making representations, and that the officer's report to committee did not say that the owners' association had also made representations. He also said that it was not reported to the committee that work had started on the site, and felt that this should have invalidated the 2011 application from being a modification of a previous consent.

We did not uphold his complaints. The council's standard acknowledgement said that those making objections could obtain information on line. We also found that the report had mentioned the representations received and these were available for members to consult. On the third complaint, our planning adviser took the view, which we accepted, that the start of work on site before the committee meeting did not invalidate the 2011 application.

Summary

Mr C decided to erect a boundary fence at his property, having firstly checked in the housing estate where he lived to see what other fences had been erected. He did not approach the council to check whether planning consent was required before proceeding. The council wrote to Mr C saying that planning consent was required because the fence was more than one metre high. However, they also told him that if he submitted a retrospective planning application (an application relating to work carried out in the past) for the existing fence it was unlikely that this would be approved, because they considered that the current height of the fence affected vehicle and pedestrian safety.

Mr C complained because he believed that this advice effectively denied him the opportunity to apply retrospectively for planning consent. He claimed that there were inconsistencies in the council’s handling of the matter, particularly in the responses he received when he complained that other residents had been allowed to apply for planning permission or that the council had not taken action to require the height of a fence to be reduced. Mr C had also put his property on the market, and complained that the council contacted his selling agents about serving an enforcement notice on his property.

We did not uphold the complaints. After taking advice from one of our planning advisers, we decided that the council’s advice to Mr C was reasonable. We found that it was good practice to tell him what the likely recommendation might be if he submitted a retrospective planning application for the unauthorised fence. We did think that the council could have made it clearer that he could still apply for planning consent, but we also took the view that it was implicit in what they said that there was an opportunity to do so. We also found no evidence of inconsistency in the handling of Mr C’s case when considered against others. Finally, we found that, although the practice of contacting selling agents had not been formalised, the council intended to include this in a procedural note for staff. Our planning adviser said that although he was not familiar with this, it was not in itself a bad practice.

Summary

Mr C is a private landlord. As his tenant had delayed in paying him rent, he asked the council for help in 'safeguarding' the tenant's housing benefit payment by having the benefit paid directly to him. A council can agree this type of request where a tenant is eight weeks or more in arrears of rent.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably ignored information in his letter to them and failed to take appropriate action. He said that the council had not used their powers to recover housing benefit paid to the tenant before the Christmas and New Year holiday period. Mr C said that his tenant left the tenancy early in the New Year, owing him two months rent. After complaining to the council, he remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. This was because our investigation found that his letter said that the tenant was not eight weeks in arrears. We found that the council did authorise a payment to the tenant just before the festive period, but that at this point the tenant was not yet eight weeks in arrears. We found that the payment had not been made in error, and that that the council's actions were reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C lives in a detached house in a town centre near a large garage. The council took over the garage and nearby offices because of road realignment and related traffic management proposals. The council's development services produced a draft development brief for the site which concentrated on the implementation of temporary landscape treatment after demolition and anticipated the redevelopment of the rest of the site. Mrs C was notified of the draft development brief and commented on it. The council's area committee amended the draft and approved the development brief, which then becomes supplementary planning guidance, and a material planning consideration (ie a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) in determining any future planning application.

Mrs C complained to the council and then to us that, in the process of approving the development brief, the council had not given proper consideration to daylight and sunlight issues and the impact of redevelopment on the amenity of her home.

Our investigation established that Mrs C had been properly notified about, and had commented on, the draft development brief before its approval. At the time she complained to us, no specific planning application had yet been made. As there was no evidence that Mrs C had at this time sustained any injustice or hardship because of the council's actions, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C and his partner (Ms D) complained that the council removed items from the garden of their council house after the end of their tenancy. The couple claimed that the council did this despite having agreed beforehand that they could collect the items later. They also complained that the council charged them for clearing these items as well as for the removal of kitchen equipment which they said they were told they could leave.

We found that the council's policies were clear, and confirmed that tenants must remove all property, including kitchen equipment such as that left by Mr C and Ms D, when they give up a tenancy. They also said that this was explained to Mr C and Ms D, and provided evidence that the couple had signed an 'end of tenancy' form saying they understood this. We did not uphold Mr C and Ms D's complaint as we found insufficient evidence to conclude that the council told them that they could leave items behind to be collected later.

Summary

Mr C alerted his local council that his neighbour had undertaken development without planning consent. The council investigated and required the neighbour to apply for retrospective planning consent. Mr C took the opportunity to make representations about the development, and the council confirmed that these would form part of the assessment which would be carried out before the application was determined. The council notified Mr C of their decision but he complained that this had been taken without visiting his property to view the development from his perspective and said that the council had not been impartial in their handling of the matter.

During our investigation we took advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that a planning officer can form a judgement about neighbouring properties from visiting the development site. Visiting every property is not practical, bearing in mind that there could be multiple objectors, and the planning adviser agreed that this was a matter for a planner's professional judgement. We did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence that Mr C’s representations were not fully considered, and the decision about whether to visit his property was a matter of professional judgement.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy because the name of their property appeared in documents that were part of the council's local development plan (a document that says what type of development should take place where, and identifies areas that should not be developed). They said that no-one asked their permission before doing this, nor were they given any warning beforehand. They were unhappy, because they felt that the council's actions went against legislation and guidance, and told us that they felt this had affected the value of their property.

When our planning adviser looked at the information provided both by Mr and Mrs C and the council, he found that the council had acted satisfactorily and followed appropriate guidance. Our investigation found that the council did not need to obtain Mr and Mrs C's permission, or give them prior warning about this, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that they were unreasonably held liable for a month's rent by a housing association because they did not give the required notice of their intention to leave the property. They said that they gave notice to leave by handing in a letter to the association's reception desk. They also complained that the association failed to tell them about arrears about which they were eventually made aware by a third party.

The association said they had no record of receiving a letter. Mr and Mrs C provided us with a copy of the letter they said they handed over, but had no receipt to show that it had been delivered or accepted. The member of staff to whom Mr and Mrs C said they gave the letter could not remember receiving it. Mr and Mrs C also said that staff knew they were leaving but the information gathered during the investigation of the complaint indicated that the association were not aware of Mr and Mrs C's intention to leave until the day they handed in their keys.

There were differing accounts of what happened, and we could only use the available evidence to reach our decision. Although, therefore, we did not disbelieve Mr and Mrs C's account of events, as there was no independent evidence to support their position we could not uphold their complaint. We also found that the association acted in line with their policy and procedures.

Summary

When Ms C attended for a psychiatric assessment, the board had concerns about her mental heath and the risks she presented to herself and others. They notified the police about an aspect of this. Ms C complained that the board failed to tell her about the action taken. We reviewed the records, and found that it was clearly documented that the police contact had been discussed with Ms C in advance. Although Ms C did not agree with this, in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C's late father (Mr A) was admitted to hospital with circulation problems in his legs. He was diagnosed as having compressed arteries causing reduced blood supply, and emergency surgery was arranged for that afternoon. This was carried out but there was no improvement and his condition deteriorated. Two days later, medical staff concluded that the outlook for Mr A was poor and agreed with his family to provide only palliative care (care to prevent or relieve suffering). Mr A passed away later that day.

Ms C said that the day after Mr A's operation her mother (Mrs A) tried unsuccessfully to discuss his condition with a doctor. Ms C also told staff that she was going on holiday the next day, but said that nobody told her how serious her father's condition was. The next day, Mrs A went to hospital expecting an update and so did not bring any family members with her. Staff there told her that Mr A’s condition was terminal. Ms C was informed of this when she arrived at her holiday destination but could not get a flight back until the following day and so did not see her father before he died.

We took advice from one of our medical advisers, and found that while Mr A was critically ill, he was stable on the day after his operation. We found no evidence that his death so soon afterwards could have been predicted, as his condition did not deteriorate significantly until shortly before his death. We also found that staff acted reasonably when they asked Mrs A to come into the hospital quickly and told her of her husband's terminal condition, as at that point Mr A was deteriorating rapidly.