Local Government

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.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of concerns relating to the planning situation at an adjoining farm. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to ensure all planning conditions attached to planning consent for the erection of four houses were enforceable. She also complained that the council failed to follow planning procedures in relation to a planning application for a replacement shed on land owned by the farm and that incorrect information was contained in the officer's report for another planning application for the same site.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, whose advice that the planning condition did not meet the standards of precision and reasonableness we accepted. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and recommended that a full and unreserved apology be issued to Mrs C.

We also found that while the officer's report lacked detail, there was no evidence that the council had failed to follow planning procedure, and we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint. The council also accepted that the officer's report had contained some drafting errors, and while we were mindful that a site visit had been carried out during which the planning officer would have seen the actual position when assessing the planning application, we found that the errors should have been corrected prior to determination of the planning application. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our findings to staff responsible for drafting or approving planning conditions, as a learning tool; and
• demonstrate how quality checking is being used to improve the accuracy and quality of planning reports (both in relation to the accuracy of calculations, and to ensuring reports are sufficiently detailed to explain and support the planning decision).

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and had not dealt reasonably with a request for rent remission (that she should not pay full rent during some of the time the repairs were taking place).

While we noted that a number of repairs were required and that there were delays, we did not find evidence that this was as a result of problems which the council could have predicted.

Regarding the request for a rent remission, we noted that Miss C had taken possession of the property following a mutual exchange, whereby she had agreed to take the property in the condition it was in. The council's view was that the property was habitable throughout the repairs, and as such full rent payment was due and no remission would be granted. We did not find this to be unreasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to act on concerns she raised about possible structural damage to her home caused by works carried out on the adjoining property. She was of the view that the building control team failed in their duty to protect her and her family from dangerous works, failed to respond appropriately to her phone calls and failed to communicate with her appropriately. She was also unhappy with their response to her subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had inspected the work and noted that the works which caused damage were to a party wall which was not included in the building warrant. The council obtained agreement from the neighbour to reinstate the wall and, having inspected the wall, they were satisfied that it was safe. The damage caused to Miss C's property by the works carried out by her neighbour were, essentially, private legal matters between her and her neighbour. Having reviewed the council's actions, we were satisfied that they responded to Miss C's concerns appropriately. We were also satisfied that they had provided a reasonable response to her subsequent complaint. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them.

Over a number of years, Mr C was involved with a website forum which focused on local politics. Material was posted on the forum which in the view of the council was offensive. The council wrote to Mr C advising that they were taking action under their policy and that they would no longer respond to communication from Mr C, whether written or verbal.

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's actions, including that they should have issued a warning and that the council's restrictions had no connection with the allegations made against him.

Having reviewed the council's Unacceptable Actions Policy, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council should have issued a formal warning to Mr C in relation to the conduct they were concerned about. We also found that the council should have provided Mr C with a more robust explanation of why they considered the restrictions on communication to have been necessary.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the procedural failings this investigation has identified; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained about a property he rented from the council and about their handling of his complaint.

Two days after signing his tenancy agreement, Mr C reported that the heating was not working. He also raised a number of additional concerns about the property including problems with a fuse box, windows and insulation, and about how the council conducted repairs.

Based on the evidence available, we found the council acted in accordance with their allocation policy when letting the property. The council provided evidence that the heating system had been in working order after installation. The council also provided a property survey report evidencing that they conducted a reasonable assessment of the property. We also found that the council acted in accordance with their repairs policy in relation to the property. The council's records indicated that repairs were attended to within the council's time-frames. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaints within a reasonable time-frame. In particular, we considered the council should have recognised his complaint at an early stage and provided a response accordingly. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in the report regarding complaints handling; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a meeting he had with them to discuss proposed design changes to a public space. He told us that he felt the staff present had communicated in a manner which was hostile and patronising and that he had left with the impression that the purpose of the meeting was to bully and intimidate him rather than discuss the merits of the proposal in question.

Mr C had originally advised that he held a recording of the meeting in question, taken with the permission of everyone present. However, the recording had become corrupted and Mr C was unable to provide this.

On investigation, we found that the council had not taken minutes or made any other written record of the meeting. We did not consider this unreasonable in the circumstances but this did mean we were unable to reach a definitive conclusion, basing our decision on the limited records that were available.

On balance, we concluded that while it was clear that Mr C had left the meeting extremely dissatisfied with the manner council officers communicated with him, the evidence available did not support this complaint. What written communication was available was considered and professional in tone and appeared to suggest that the council were willing to discuss the issues in question openly and thoroughly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.