Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's social work department did not investigate his complaint, as he submitted it after their deadline. We found that Mr C did submit his complaint after the council's deadline, and that the council had followed their procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not acknowledge his contact when he repeatedly reported problems with street cleanliness and the condition of on-street bins. We found evidence that the council acted reasonably in response to some, but not all, of the issues raised.

The council acknowledged they failed to consistently provide the level of customer service Mr C was entitled to under their service standards. We also found Mr C was not given good information about the council's complaints process and that his many communications to the council were not always handled in an effective way. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

We noted that the council had offered to meet with Mr C on more than one occasion to get a better understanding of his complaint and that Mr C did not take up this offer. In doing so he missed an opportunity to have his outstanding concerns resolved.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• offer to arrange a visit to explain the standard of street cleanliness to expect going forward; and
• carry out a review of how the council manage multiple contacts with named officers about more than one council service to identify potential improvements.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to comply with their bullying policy. Mrs C had raised issues with the council in relation to her daughter (Miss A) being bullied at school. The council explained that they had not initially treated the issues raised by Mrs C as bullying. They provided logs detailing concern by Mrs C that Miss A was being bullied and outlined the action taken by the school.

Mrs C was also concerned that Miss A was not given a suitable room on a school trip in light of problems with bullying and that the council had not looked into why her daughter had slept outside her room. In their response, the council provided a copy of the risk assessment that detailed that spot-checks would be carried out. However, there was no record detailing these checks. Although the council apologised to Mrs C that the information she provided prior to the trip had not been passed on to staff, we were concerned that there was no record of conversations with staff members. We therefore upheld these elements of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the school did not provide accurate information on whether the school operated a buddy system. The council acknowledged and apologised for this and we therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C said that the council failed to keep reasonable care records. The council said they were satisfied that Miss A's notes contained sufficient information. However, we found in particular that they did not include a record of a pre-arranged meeting. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that staff at Miss A's school had inappropriate conversations with Miss A. While we were satisfied with the way the council had acknowledged the concerns Mrs C raised with them in this regard and had apologised, on balance we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Finally, Mrs C complained that the council did not handle her complaint or communicate with her reasonably. The council said that it was difficult to communicate reasonably as Mrs C had raised her complaints with a number of people. They said they would offer Mrs C an additional apology in relation to this. The council also accepted that there had been a delay outwith their own timescales in responding to Mrs C's complaint. In light of this, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider their procedures for organising school trips to ensure all relevant information is recorded and taken into consideration when organising a school trip;
• consider, in view of the issues raised in this complaint, whether there is a need for a formal record of the checks carried out on pupils during bed times;
• ensure that relevant staff are fully aware of all the strategies, including the buddy system, that are available to assist pupils experiencing difficulties; and
• consider the benefits of retaining a brief record or note of meetings with parents, in particular when these are pre-arranged.

Summary

Mr and Ms C, who work for a law clinic, complained on behalf of Miss B about the care provided to Miss B's mother (Mrs A) and the charges for this care, including that there was a long delay in notifying Mrs A's family about the amount of accumulating arrears. Miss B said they had been unaware as a family that the transport taking Mrs A to day care was a chargeable service. She said that by the time the family became aware of the charges, Mrs A had used the service for around a year. When they became aware that the transport service was chargeable, they cancelled it.

Miss B's complaints about delay and the lack of transparency were both upheld by the council. Miss B wanted to take these complaints along with the other issues she had raised to a complaints review committee (CRC), an independent body and the final stage of the council's social work complaints procedure. The CRC declined to deal with the complaints that had already been upheld by the council, saying they considered them to be resolved.

We found it was unreasonable for the council to decline to deal with upheld complaints at CRCs. We found that it was for the complainant to decide whether, or to what extent, individual complaints had been addressed or resolved. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• arrange a CRC to hear evidence relating to the upheld complaints.

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.