Local Government

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. In response to Miss C's complaint, the council told her they had investigated her concerns. They noted that her reports were related to noise that would be expected during her neighbour's daily use of the property and that making this noise was not considered to be anti-social behaviour.

Miss C was unhappy with the council's decision. We investigated and noted that the council's anti-social behaviour team had responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On two occasions they had taken steps to warn her neighbour about the noise but were satisfied that on other occasions there were no instances of anti-social behaviour. They did note that her property had poor sound insulation and carried out works accordingly. However, Miss C continued to report noise.

We accepted that Miss C had suffered from the noise but were satisfied that the council had investigated Miss C's concerns and taken action where appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to resolve flooding in his house which appeared to be coming from a nearby culverted burn (a burn that is diverted through a pipe). Although the council undertook some investigations including a camera survey which found that the pipe did not follow the expected route, they were not able to survey the full length of the pipe due to an inaccessible manhole. They told Mr C they were not responsible for repairs as the problem appeared to be on private land.

Mr C disagreed and contacted his councillor. After a meeting with all parties the council agreed to undertake a dowser survey (a test used to detect the presence of water) to trace the route of the pipe. The survey was undertaken but the council did not contact Mr C after this or respond to his email asking about next steps.

After investigating these issues we upheld Mr C's complaint about communication. We found it was unreasonable that the council did not share the results of the dowser survey with Mr C or respond to his email about this. We also found the council did not give Mr C clear and consistent information about what he could expect from them as they told him the repairs were not their responsibility but also continued to indicate that future work was anticipated.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the repairs as we found the council had taken reasonable steps to check that the repairs were not their responsibility.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure in communication;
• remind relevant staff of the importance of documenting meetings, in particular agreed outcomes; and
• consider and address relevant staff training needs in relation to clear communication and managing expectations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaint about a letter written to her husband which contained comments about her. In particular, she was concerned that the council had not contacted her during their investigation of her complaint. She also complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a request to defer her son's entry to primary school. In particular, she was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the information provided and the handling of her complaint.

While we had some concerns about aspects of the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint to them, we were satisfied that the council had explained why they had written to Mrs C's husband. However, we did not consider that the council's position on not considering information during an investigation which was covertly obtained was reasonable. We were also satisfied that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for the information provided and saw no evidence of fault in the handling of Mrs C's complaint about this matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the handling of this complaint; and
• in view of the legal advice detailed in this case, reconsider their position for future cases on the admissibility of material presented in a complaint which has been obtained covertly.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council handled her concerns about a breach of planning control by her neighbours who had built a balcony. She complained that it did not meet the minimum distance requirements for privacy. Ms C also pointed out that while the council said they followed guidance, the guidance did not refer to balconies. She questioned therefore how the council could say they followed guidance.

In addition, Ms C pointed out that the council elected to use window to window minimum distance measurements for assessing privacy, but she noted that the council themselves pointed out that the minimum distances were not met.

We requested all of the relevant information from the council and also sought independent planning advice. We noted that, prior to our involvement in this case, the council had acknowledged their failings and had taken action to remedy them. In particular, the council recognised that their Guidance to Householders was insufficient with regard to balconies and privacy and accepted that it should be reviewed.

The adviser confirmed that the use of enforcement powers is a discretionary matter for the council. The adviser also concluded that the council had addressed the concerns Ms C raised and that their officers applied the most appropriate guidance available to them at the time. We accepted this view and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of statutory notices issued in relation to his property.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the notification process in relation to the issue of the statutory notices or that they had failed to follow procedures in relation to the decision to administer the works on behalf of owners.

While we were concerned that the council's project file was incomplete in relation to the repairs carried out, the project had been reviewed by an independent adviser appointed by the council, who was satisfied that the works carried out were within the scope of the statutory notices and the final bill issued to owners was correct. We were also aware that action had been taken by the council to improve record-keeping in relation to project files for works undertaken to comply with statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably invoiced him for the cost of work associated with two emergency statutory notices carried out four years previously. These had been issued to make safe masonry on a building where Mr C owns a flat. Mr C was concerned that the council could only provide evidence of the amount they paid the contractor for the work, rather than an itemised bill. He was also concerned about the length of time it took the council to invoice him for the share of the costs.

The council said that invoices from the contractor could not be retrieved as the company was no longer trading. They said that the invoices were submitted by the contractor electronically through the council's internal payment system, therefore there was no paper copy on record other than printouts confirming the payments the council had made to the contractor. The council said that there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory, and so they felt the invoices were accurate and recoverable from the owners.

We were critical that the council was unable to provide records to show that the site had been inspected to verify completion of the work before payment was authorised to the contractor. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory. We were satisfied that the council had implemented guidance on the emergency statutory notice process. We also found that the council had delayed issuing the invoices due to an investigation into their former property conservation section and that the council was entitled to pursue the outstanding costs after four years. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a planning application to develop residential accommodation at a site next to the home of her daughter (Miss A). Mrs C complained that the council had not taken appropriate action when she highlighted issues with the accuracy of the applicant's submission. She also complained that the council had not allowed sufficient time before a committee meeting for her to submit additional information about the impact of the new development on daylight at Miss A's home.

We took independent planning advice. We found that when Mrs C raised concerns about the accuracy of the application, the council did not acknowledge or act on these quickly. The council had recognised this during their own consideration of the complaint and taken remedial action. The advice we received highlighted a failure to re-notify neighbours when the applicant submitted further information to the council. Had the council taken this action, it would have allowed Mrs C further time to submit information relating to the daylight impact of the development.

We also found the council had told Mrs C that a short turnaround time had been given due to concerns about the applicant appealing against non-determination of the planning application (the planning applicant has a right to appeal the non-determination of their application if the council has not reached a decision to grant or refuse planning consent within a specific statutory timescale). The advice we received was that the timescale for an appeal had already passed and consequently this was not a relevant factor in the case. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mrs C with an apology for the incorrect information she was given about a potential appeal for non-determination of the planning application.

Summary

Ms C and Mr C complained about the level of consultation carried out by the council in relation to a site planning brief issued by them proposing that an area of open space on a former school site be released, in part, for housing.

We reviewed the steps taken by the council when undertaking the consultation and also considered the procedural and legal duties imposed on the council in respect of consultation. Having done so, we were of the view that the consultation carried out was proportionate and in line with the council's responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C said that her daughter (Miss A) was unable to go on an outdoor education trip organised through her school as she had her period that day and there were no arrangements for toilet stops during the outing. After raising a complaint about this with the council, Miss C agreed to look over draft documentation on the council's policy on offsite trips as part of a review group and provide feedback. This process subsequently broke down and Miss C complained again to the council and was given assurances that the changes that she felt should be made would be put in place. When Miss A's school next issued correspondence on an outdoor education trip, Miss C said it was clear that the agreed changes had not been made.

Miss C complained that the council acted unreasonably by failing to make the amendments to the documentation on the council's policy which she was led to believe would be put in place. The council acknowledged that this was the case and that the timescale for finalising and implementing the revised documents was unreasonable. This was supported by documentary evidence and we therefore upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Miss C also complained that the council's handling of her complaint was unreasonable. Miss C raised several issues, including that the timescale for dealing with her complaint was excessively lengthy. We found that there were unreasonable delays by the council in acknowledging and responding to Miss C's complaint. We also found that the council appeared to be operating two different complaints procedures, one of which (Complaints Procedure 1) contained an excessive number of stages and out-of-date information on rights of appeal, and did not comply with the local authority's model complaints handling procedure. We therefore also upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that possible toilet stops are included in every outdoor activity plan;
• provide Miss C and her daughter with a written apology for the failings identified;
• ensure that Complaints Procedure 1 complies with the model customer facing complaints procedure on the Complaints Standards Authority Valuing Complaints website;
• feed back our decision on Miss C's complaint to the staff involved; and
• provide Miss C with a written apology for the additional failings referred to in our decision.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had twice reported faulty street lights to the council and that they had failed to repair the lights, as they were required to do. He also complained about the way in which the council dealt with his complaint.

The council had acknowledged failings in their repairs process and subsequent communication and advised Mr C that these lights would be repaired.

We found that the council's records of Mr C's initial reports and their subsequent actions were poor. We were unclear as to what action had been taken by the council as the evidence was limited. We also noted that the council had failed to address Mr C's subsequent complaints to them, to speak to Mr C to discuss his concerns, and to respond to his correspondence in line with their complaints process. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of Mr C's request for repairs to the street lamps in order to establish why they do not appear to have reacted to his multiple reports of street lighting faults within the required timescale and also review their record-keeping to ensure that accurate records are retained of reports of faults and repairs carried out; and
• reflect on their handling of this complaint in order to identify why responses were not provided within the appropriate time frames, why Mr C was not contacted to clarify his complaint and why the points he raised were not addressed in either their stage one or stage two responses.