Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council following an investigation they carried out into fly tipping near a property owned by a trust he was responsible for. He advised that he had recently instructed roof repairs to the property, which he told us had been completed and the waste properly disposed of in a skip procured by his roofing contractor. However, shortly after this, some roofing material was illegally left on council-owned land, near where the skip had been.

Mr C advised that he contacted the council officer responsible for the investigation after a note was posted into the property in question. He said that the council officer immediately accused him of dumping the materials in question and refused to accept his attempts to refute the allegations, threatening to serve a fixed penalty notice if he did not arrange for the material to be immediately removed.

On investigation, we found that the council officer had failed to carry out the investigation in line with council policies and procedures, which stated that enforcement action should only be taken if the council were in possession of two signed witness statements or conclusive evidence found within the dumped waste. From the evidence we saw, the council officer had acted on one informal report from a neighbour in the area, and that this report did not place the blame directly onto Mr C, but on the contractor who attended to collect the skip.

We also considered that Mr C had presented clear arguments to support his innocence, including offering photographic evidence and a copy of a signed contract confirming that the roofing contractor was responsible for disposing of all waste generated by the repairs. According to the council's policies, their officer should have then contacted the contractor to discuss the matter further. Instead, he repeatedly threatened Mr C with a fixed penalty notice until Mr C arranged for the waste to be removed.

Further to this, we were critical that the council had failed to identify these errors, both when investigating Mr C's complaint to them and in response to our enquiries. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• discuss these findings with the council officer in question to identify the root cause of the failings identified and take suitable steps to address this;
• explain why these failings were not identified as part of their own investigation; and
• carry out a thorough audit of similar investigations to ensure the proper procedures are being followed.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council were unreasonable in their processing of her and her mother (Mrs A)'s mutual exchange application. She also complained that the council failed to assess and carry out repairs to Mrs A's house within a reasonable timescale, and that they failed to respond adequately to her complaints.

We did not uphold Miss C's concerns about the mutual exchange because we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that the mutual exchange was cancelled by the council, as was suggested by Miss C. The council suggested that Mrs A cancelled the mutual exchange. As we did not have sufficient evidence to say who cancelled the mutual exchange, we did not uphold this element of the complaint. We also found that the council acted reasonably in respect of the requested repairs because their records indicated that they attended to every request for repairs, where possible. On the occasions where they failed to do so, their records noted that this was because they were unable to gain access. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Miss C's complaint.

We did note that the council failed to respond to all the points that Miss C raised in her subsequent complaint, and we noted that their response contained a number of inaccuracies. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for their failure to respond to all of her concerns in their complaint responses and for the poor quality of their written responses; and
• reflect on the errors identified in this case and advise us how they will quality-assure future written responses to ensure all points raised are included and name and date errors are identified and corrected.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council regarding toileting equipment for her disabled child at the two schools the child attended. She told us that she found there had been no suitable toilet chair in place at either school for some time. She said that she then requested appropriate equipment was put in place but that this took a number of months.

We found that it was not reasonable for the council to have failed to ensure appropriate equipment was in place until Ms C brought it to their attention. We also found that there were avoidable delays following Ms C's request. In particular, there was a delay of six weeks due to planned leave for a single member of staff. We considered that the council should have taken steps to ensure appropriate cover was in place given the nature and length of the leave.

We also found that the council had failed to deliver accessories required to install the equipment in one of the schools. After this was identified by an occupational therapist there was a delay of around three months before these were provided. The council failed to provide an explanation for this error or subsequent delays.

During our investigation, we also found that the council had failed to record a number of discussions held with Ms C that related to the care arrangements of her child.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C and her child for the failings identified;
• provide us with an explanation for the delays in delivering the missing accessories; and
• review the process for recording review meetings and discussions with parents, to ensure all decisions reached are accurately recorded.

Summary

Mr C objected to a planning application that was subsequently granted. Mr C had raised various concerns with the council and was unhappy with the council's handling of these concerns, including in relation to insulation boards and solar panels. In particular, he felt that the council had failed to properly assess non-material variation (NMV) requests; that they had failed to properly identify and address concerns about deviations from the approved plan and potential breach of planning conditions; that they had failed to correctly implement their NMV guidelines; that they had not properly fed back the outcome of his complaint to relevant staff; and that they had not posted the NMV details online, which they said they would do.

We sought independent planning advice. We noted that the council had already acknowledged and upheld some of Mr C's complaints. We upheld Mr C's complaints about the assessment of the NMVs. We also upheld Mr C's complaint in relation to the council having failed to properly identify and address appropriately concerns about deviations from the approved plan. The adviser felt that the NMV guidelines had unreasonably raised Mr C's expectations.

We noted that some of Mr C's concerns about development had not been considered and responded to by the council. We also found that the council had failed to feed back the outcome of the complaint to the relevant officers and that the NMV information had not been posted online. However, we were satisfied that the council had apologised to Mr C for this and had taken action to prevent a similar situation occurring in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the NMV guidelines to ensure that it is clear to members of the public that these are guidelines only and the council has discretion to depart from them;
• consider and respond to Mr C's concerns about the change of insulation boards and omission of solar panels;
• review the circumstances giving rise to Mr C's complaint that they failed to properly identify and address appropriately concerns about deviations from the approved plan and potential breach of planning conditions and provide evidence that they have taken action to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future; and
• when reviewing the NMV guidelines, consider whether these need to make clearer that some variations can be approved through a planning condition on the original planning permission.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council was allowing his neighbour, who had applied for planning permission and built a garage in his garden ground, to use the garage as residential accommodation. He complained that they should not allow his neighbour to do so and also that the building did not meet the required building standards.

In responding to the complaint, the council had explained that although his neighbour had planning consent for a domestic garage, it was for his neighbour to decide how to use the building providing it was not a separate residential unit and its use was incidental to the existing use of the main house. They also confirmed that the neighbour had submitted a building warrant application, with supporting plans, and the building had been inspected by building control officers and a completion certificate issued.

We were satisfied that the council were correct in that the use of the garage as overspill accommodation for family and friends was incidental to the existing dwelling house and was, therefore, a permitted use under the existing planning consent. We were also satisfied that the council did ensure that the correct process was followed in ensuring that the current building standards were met. As we did not find evidence of administrative or service failure in the way these matters were dealt with, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about a decision by the council to reduce an award of discretionary housing payment (DHP).

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably based their decision on the length of time he had been receiving the award, rather than on his individual circumstances. Mr C also complained that in making the decision, the council had acted unreasonably by failing to consult their policy on the prevention of homelessness.

We considered that, taking account of the relevant Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) guidance and their own DHP policies, the council had a wide discretion to reach a decision on Mr C's DHP application. We considered the council could take into account the length of time Mr C was in receipt of an award of DHP. We found no evidence that in making their decision, the council had not followed DWP guidance.

We also found no indication in Mr C's DHP application form that he would be under threat of homelessness were his application not successful, which could have prompted specific consultation on the council's homelessness policy. We did not find that Mr C was made homeless by the decision to reduce his award of DHP. However, we considered the council should ensure their relevant housing team and revenues and benefits team liaise with each other in cases where a claim for DHP is being considered and which may involve the loss of a tenancy and possible homelessness. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C sought a review of the council's decision. Mr C complained the council had acted unreasonably by allowing a manager to review a decision in which they had already taken part and by basing their decision during the review process on cash limits rather than a holistic approach required by council policy. We considered that the council officer was only restating the decision which had already been reached on Mr C's review request. We were also satisfied that the DHP fund was cash limited and considered that the council were reasonably entitled to take this into account. We did not find that the council had failed to take account of the DWP guidance and their DHP policies when reviewing Mr C's claim. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure the relevant housing and revenues and benefits teams liaise with each other in cases where a claim for discretionary housing payment is being considered and which may involve the loss of a tenancy and possible homelessness.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to address within a reasonable timescale her concerns about anti-social behaviour. Mrs C also felt that the council had not responded adequately to her complaints.

The council stated that they felt they had responded reasonably and in line with their procedures both in terms of the anti-social behaviour complaints and in terms of their complaints handling.

Our view was that the council had been at fault in not appropriately acting upon Mrs C's initial anti-social behaviour complaint. We also found that the council had not recognised an email from Mrs C as a complaint or dealt with it in accordance with their procedures. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to appropriately log her anti-social behaviour complaint and for their delay in commencing an investigation of her concerns; and
• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to deal with her correspondence as a complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained about the time it took the council to deal with a problem she was having with pigeons on her balcony. Although we found the council's communication could have been better, we were satisfied that the works, which had been assessed as non-emergency, were carried out within a reasonable timescale. We therefore did no uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also told us there was a delay in progressing a claim she made for compensation. This delay had already been acknowledged by the council. Ms C also said that the council did not respond reasonably to points of complaint she raised by email. We found that there were shortcomings in the council's response and that some issues were not addressed either at all or as fully as possible. We therefore upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the unnecessary delay in progressing Ms C's claim for compensation.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to properly handle numerous complaints about noise from her downstairs neighbour that she had been experiencing for two years.

We found that the council's initial response to Miss C's noise complaints was appropriate and in line with their Antisocial Behaviour Policy.

However, aside from a period of time when the council were trying to work with the neighbour to reach a long-term resolution, we were concerned that the council had allowed the behaviour to continue for so long without further action being considered or taken under the Antisocial Behaviour Policy. We also had concerns that an internal review had concluded that the behaviour had improved, even though Miss C continued to report noise complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings identified in this investigation; and
• review Miss C's noise complaints in line with the Antisocial Behaviour Policy and fully consider all options available to properly address her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about a statutory notice on his property. He complained that the council had failed to act on his assertion that his property had been damaged by the contractors carrying out the statutory notice work and that a breakdown of costs had not been provided to him either during the works or after completion. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to notify him properly of the statutory notice, and failed to manage the projects in line with their obligations.

During our investigations we examined the information provided by the council and Mr C. We found that Mr C had not raised the issue of his property being damaged until several years after the works had been completed and therefore the council had no obligation to act. We found that the council had provided Mr C with a breakdown of estimated costs during the works being carried out, and a breakdown of final costs when they were completed. We also found that Mr C had been notified of the statutory notices in line with council policy, and that the projects were managed in line with all council obligations. Therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.