Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that after they accepted a house requiring modifications in respect of Mrs C's disabilities, the council failed to complete the work in a timely manner. They also complained that the council failed to provide them with suitable alternative accommodation for the duration of the works.

Our investigation found that Mr and Mrs C accepted the property in the knowledge that works were necessary to make it suitable. While Mr and Mrs C maintained that the work was to be done before they took entry, we found nothing to confirm this. We noted that architect's plans were required to be drawn up and surveys (including a survey for the presence of asbestos) were needed before works could be specified for tender. This would all take time and Mr and Mrs C were encouraged to apply for housing benefit to allow them to remain in their original home until the work was done. Mr and Mrs C did not wish to do this, and so moved into the new accommodation. Once work was due to go ahead, Mr and Mrs C refused entry to the workers on the grounds that they needed alternative accommodation. We found that while the works did not require the council to provide alternative accommodation, they did offer Mr and Mrs C the use of facilities in a nearby sheltered housing complex. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure his bins were collected. We contacted the council, who did not respond to our enquiries in full. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that he receives a reasonable bin collection service;
• produce a detailed strategy to ensure that Mr C's bins are sufficient in number, are collected regularly in line with the council's obligations and are monitored for a three-month period to ensure collection; and
• provide this office with a copy of the strategy mentioned above.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's assessment of his mother (Mrs A)'s residential care charges. Mr C did not have power of attorney for Mrs A, and he had not progressed his concerns to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). We looked at the council's handling of the complaint because of the difficulties Mr C was having in progressing his complaint and because the council did not give him a timely response after they received permission from Mrs A's attorney. The council sent a detailed response to Mr C and offered to convene a CRC.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about parking tickets that he had received from the council. Mr C had appealed some of the charges but the council had rejected his appeal. He then appealed the charges to the independent body that deals with appeals but at that stage, the council decided not to contest his appeal.

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to action his report of faulty ticket machines. We found that the council had delayed in correcting the signs on the machines about the coins they would accept and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. He also complained about the council's handling of the appeals. We found that although Mr C had been inconvenienced by the fact that he had to submit a second appeal to the independent body, the decisions taken on the appeals by the council were decisions they were entitled to take and there was no evidence of procedural failings. Mr C also complained that the council had not told him why they had decided not to contest his appeal. However, this was also a decision they were entitled to take. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to issues he had raised about the legal position of the parking spaces. We found that the council's response to him on this matter had been reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not followed their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints. We found that there had been delays in dealing with Mr C's complaint. The council had only recorded the matter as a complaint after this office became involved. We also found that the council had not adequately responded to all of the issues he raised. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the delay in correcting the signage and the failures in relation to the handling of his complaint;
• provide evidence to confirm that in future, where required, the signage on parking meter machines will be updated promptly; and
• confirm that the staff involved in handling Mr C's complaints have been made aware of our decisions.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for a development near his home.

We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond to an enquiry from him about the height of the building. We also found that the council had failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on his property and that the planning report contained inaccurate information about overlooking of his property, which misled the planning committee. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained to us about the action the council had taken to mitigate the impact of the development on his property. The council had asked the developer to plant trees along the boundary of the properties to provide additional privacy and screening. We found that the steps taken by the council in relation to the matter had not been satisfactory. Whilst the council had accepted that the problem had arisen because of their failings, they had tried to resolve the matter through negotiation with the developer. We found that it was the council's responsibility to try to resolve the matter. We considered that they should be prepared to fund the cost of this and use any measures available to them as the planning authority, in the event that negotiation fell short of what was required. We upheld this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond to his correspondence about the matter appropriately. We found that the council should have registered his correspondence as a complaint at an earlier stage and had failed to keep him updated. They also failed to respond to him within the timescales they had given and did not respond reasonably to some of the issues he had raised. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide this office with evidence that there are now processes and procedures in place, such as a guidance note on writing planning reports, to prevent the failings identified from recurring;
• take steps to ensure that there is effective screening between the two properties. This should include meeting the costs of the screening if necessary. In the event that the council is unable to secure this with the co-operation of other parties, they should consider the full use of the statutory interventions available;
• provide this office with evidence that steps have been taken to try to ensure that correspondence and complaints about planning issues are responded to appropriately and in line with the relevant guidance; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she was charged when she failed to respond to contact from the council regarding a gas safety visit.

The council said they had sent her two letters, the engineers had called on her twice and left postcards asking her to contact them and they had heard nothing from her. They then hand-delivered a letter telling Mrs C she would be charged for having not previously responded to them and would face a larger charge if she continued to fail to contact them as the council would force entry to her home to carry out the safety checks.

At this point, Mrs C contacted the council and said she had not received any of the previous communications. We found that the council's policy is to call the tenant after the first two attempted visits. There was no evidence to suggest this had been done. As the council could not demonstrate they had followed their procedure, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• cancel the outstanding bill; and
• review the procedure related to how contact is recorded.

Summary

Ms C's neighbour applied for planning permission to build a porch extension which Ms C considered blocked her light. She complained to the council after permission was granted and was told that the plans had passed the daylight test. Ms C complained that the plans to which the daylight test was applied were inaccurate. The council responses indicated that they had tested the plans for accuracy but despite repeated requests for the information, the council could not offer proof of this test. Ms C continued to complain after she had had a final decision and the council reinvestigated her concerns concluding in a second final response. Ms C was unhappy that the plans were inaccurate, the council failed to provide her with proof of their test of accuracy and issued her with numerous responses after a supposedly final response.

We concluded that the council were reasonably entitled to assume the plans were accurate but should have provided Ms C with the information about this (or any test used to check accuracy of plans) and should not have continued to consider Ms C's complaint after issuing a final decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Ms C with either the mathematical method used to check the accuracy of the plans or an explanation as to why they were satisfied that the plans were accurate;
• apologise to Ms C for not providing the information or an explanation despite repeated requests; and
• take steps to ensure that planning department staff discuss the outcome of this complaint at a team meeting to raise awareness of the correct process for dealing with repeat complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to adequately address the concerns she had raised with them regarding water penetration at the home of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs C also felt that the council had acted unreasonably in their response to her complaints.

The council did not accept that they had failed to adequately address the water penetration, but did concede in the course of this investigation that they should have recognised Mrs C's initial complaint as such, instead of dealing with it as a request for service.

We agreed with the council that their response to the water penetration concerns at Mrs A's home had been reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. We did, however, uphold Mrs C's complaint about the council not responding reasonably to her complaint to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to deal with her correspondence as a complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application at a business park where he owns property. Mr C was concerned that the neighbour notification process had not been correctly followed as he had not received any information on the proposed development. He also complained that the council did not have sufficient information about the nature of the business that was to operate from the new development before approving the application, and that his subsequent reports of noise and pollution had not been acted on appropriately.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser and upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that while Mr C's property was not within the neighbour notification area, the council had already acknowledged that the process had not been correctly followed as the description of the development provided in the notification and local press advertisements was inaccurate. The council accepted that updating the description amounted to a substantial change which should have been re-notified and re-advertised. The advice that we received was that a change of this type should have necessitated a new planning application. The council explained that they had reviewed their planning processes and steps were in now in place to prevent a recurrence of errors like this in future.

In relation to the information available to the council in reaching a decision on the planning application, the advice we received was that not all material considerations had been taken into account. The adviser considered there was no evidence that pollution and contamination had been considered. The adviser explained that any decision on whether the planning consent was valid would be a matter for the courts if a legal challenge was made.

We noted that Mr C had continued to report difficulties in respect of pollution. We found that following initial reports, there had been a failure to promptly advise Mr C of the outcome of environmental investigations and that planning action on this issue had been somewhat delayed. We made a number of recommendations to address the issues highlighted by this investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence of all the steps taken, including training, to prevent such errors recurring in future;
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation;
• make the relevant staff aware of the adviser's comments and guidance on material considerations;
• establish whether noise and pollution continues to be a concern for Mr C; and
• consider further environmental health investigation on the basis of the current position.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow correct procedures when diverting a long-distance pathway which was also part of the council's core path network. He said this removed his right to object and comment on the proposed diversion.

We found that as the council were not required to close and divert the route, the consultation process would not apply. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter and did not uphold the complaint.