Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A) about the transfer of school work when she moved between two schools.

We found that while the first school had updated Miss A's exam results promptly after she withdrew from the school, they did not properly deal with requests from Miss A and staff from the second school for evidence of those marks in the form of coursework.

We also found that the council had not identified this poor communication in their complaint investigation. We noted that they appeared to have contacted only the first school during their investigation and not the second school. We found this to be unreasonable. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• share the outcome of this complaint with relevant staff; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his concerns and to his daughter for the distress caused to her by the inadequate communication between the schools.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about a local bus company's use of the street outside his house for driver changeovers. Various options that would help resolve this problem had been considered but none had been put in place. Separately to this, there were plans to upgrade a nearby junction. This project included measures to accommodate driver changeovers and the council anticipated these would resolve Mr C's problems with driver changeovers.

Following a local consultation, the council began formal proceedings to carry out the upgrade, including a statutory consultation. Mr C complained that the length of time taken by these proceedings was unreasonable. He also complained that the council was not enforcing regulations on buses stopping in a restricted area near his home.

We acknowledged that the statutory process and the way the upgrade project was funded affected the timescale and that this was outside the council's control. However, we found that the council had introduced some avoidable delays that extended the timescale. We also found that the council was aware of drivers being asked by the bus company to stop in the restricted area. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the avoidable delay in the process;
• provide Mr C with an update and schedule for the works at the junction near his home; and
• consider whether enforcement of relevant traffic-related legislation is required.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council erected new equipment in an established play park next to her home. The new equipment is proving significantly more successful than the previous equipment and is being used by many more people. Mrs C is unhappy with the noise from the park area and has suffered from some anti-social behaviour from park users. She complained to us that the council failed to carry out an appropriate public consultation before installing the equipment.

In their response to the complaint the council had told Mrs C that there was no duty for them to carry out a substantial consultation for the installation of this type of equipment in an established play park, although they noted that they had consulted with local schools. They said that as they were replacing old play equipment with new, there was also no need for the submission of a planning application for the majority of the equipment. However, they acknowledged that one piece of equipment did exceed the height limits for consideration as permitted development. As a result, they considered whether this specific piece of equipment was of sufficient detriment, in itself, to require the submission of a planning application. They decided that the submission of a planning application was not required as the equipment only just exceeded the height limits, it could not be reduced in height and they deemed that the additional height, in itself, would not be detrimental to Mrs C's amenity.

We were satisfied that there was no additional duty on the council to consult. We were also satisfied that they had correctly identified an individual item of equipment as being one which would not normally meet the criteria for permitted development and that they had assessed whether the additional height of the single item of equipment would have an impact on Mrs C's amenity. As they demonstrated that they had considered whether a planning application should be requested, and as no further public consultation was required, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action to protect him and other residents from what he said were excessive levels of noise from a scrap processing yard next to his home. Mr C considered the noise levels were a statutory nuisance and the council had failed to take appropriate action to address this.

We obtained independent advice from an environmental health adviser. The complaints concerning noise levels had been long-standing and ongoing. We accepted that the council had carried out noise monitoring as a result of complaints received about the level of noise coming from the scrap yard since 2011. We were satisfied that the council had determined that a statutory noise nuisance was established firstly in 2011, and then again in 2012 and 2013.

However, the council did not take enforcement action and serve an abatement notice until late 2013. The abatement notice was then suspended. We considered the council could and should have taken earlier action. We were critical of the council's failure to do so and of the significant delay in serving the abatement notice from the time when nuisance was first established in 2011.

The council said that since the abatement notice was suspended they have continued to assess complaints received and have not found there to be any situation which warranted further enforcement action. However, we found it concerning that since the suspension a significant number of complaints about noise have been made. Although the council have said the noise levels were found to be excessive on only two of these occasions, it was unclear why the council have not taken further enforcement action. We considered the council failed to act reasonably in respect of noise nuisance that Mr C experienced at his home and made a number of recommendations to address this.

Mr C also complained about the council's handling of concerns he raised about alleged soil contamination in his garden and at a nearby play park, which he considered had originated from the operations carried out at the scrap yard. We found that the council had carried out sampling which included taking samples of soil and fruit from Mr C's garden. The advice we received from the adviser was that the council had carried out appropriate monitoring and sampling and in respect of the most recent sampling results had taken appropriate advice from public health authorities about these results and in evaluating the risk to human health. These results had found there was not a significant risk to human health and that further investigation was not required. We therefore did not uphold this part of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their failure to act reasonably and earlier in respect of noise nuisance Mr C experienced at his home;
• undertake a review of their policies and procedures in relation to noise nuisance, having due regard to the current guidance and best practice, and to ensure that staff have the requisite competencies in assessing acoustics and noise control;
• ensure our investigation findings are brought to the attention of the relevant staff involved; and
• provide evidence of what action they are taking to continue to monitor noise levels from the scrap yard.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council were refusing to clear his neighbour's guttering which, he said, was having an impact on the effectiveness of his guttering. He also complained that the council refused to replace the garden fence. The council had initially agreed to do both but, as Mr C's neighbour turned out to be an owner-occupier, they said they would not carry out the work without an agreement that the neighbour would contribute to the costs.

Mr C was unhappy with this view; however, having reviewed the council's procedures, we were satisfied that they were acting in accordance with their responsibilities. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C applied to the park authority for a repair grant; it was initially refused, but later an offer of funding was made. However, the park authority withdrew the offer of funding. Mrs C complained about this, and that the park authority would not change information they gave to applicants.

The park authority's conditions of grant stated that building work must not start before a signed copy of a grant offer has been received by the park authority, and that the park authority reserved the right to withhold the grant if any conditions were not complied with. As Mrs C's building work started before she was offered the grant, the park authority withdrew the offer. We found that while the timing of this was unfortunate from Mrs C's perspective, that did not invalidate the conditions of the grant.

The park authority explained that the circumstances in which funding became available to Mrs C were unusual, and they explained the importance of not raising applicants expectations falsely; we found these explanations were reasonable. In addition, the park authority said that, in future, they would consider Mrs C's point about the wording of their documentation where possible. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C and his then partner (Ms D) attended a multi-agency meeting at a school in the council's area regarding their foster son. Mr C was unhappy about the way he was spoken to at the meeting by one of the school's staff. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to reasonably investigate his complaint about the way in which he was spoken to at the meeting in line with their complaints procedure.

Mr C's concerns included that the council's investigating officer should have interviewed all four of the meeting attendees to ascertain the truth and that the council's complaints procedure available to him online was out of date. He also said that the council failed to signpost him to us and had to be pressed to confirm that their complaints procedure had been completed.

We considered that it was for the council's investigating officer to determine what evidence she needed in order to make a decision on Mr C's complaint. There was no requirement in the council's complaints procedure for her to have interviewed all persons present at the meeting. However, it would have been helpful if the council had explained to Mr C why they considered that the social worker at the meeting could be a corroborating witness for the member of the school's staff, but that Ms D could not be considered a corroborating witness for his version of events.

The council acknowledged that the complaints procedure available online at that time was out of date. The evidence showed that the investigating officer failed to inform Mr C that her response was the final stage of the council's complaints procedure and the response did not refer him to us. This resulted in several months of unnecessary communications between Mr C and the council on his complaint. We were also concerned that the council failed to make and retain notes of key events in the handling of Mr C's complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that, in future, records of key events during the investigation of complaints are made and retained; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's communication with her over a series of suspensions to her housing benefit.

We found that the council had communicated clearly with Miss C about the reasons for the suspensions and that she had been told what further information was required.

Although during our investigation we found that Miss C expected the council to reply to her emails unreasonably quickly, we did find administrative failings on the council's part, including sending an important email to the wrong address, not finding an attachment to one of Miss C's emails, and advising Miss C that a notice had been sent when it had not. They also failed to reply to two separate emails sent by Miss C. We therefore upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the handling of this case to establish the cause of administrative errors, and identify what steps might be taken to avoid recurrence. The council should then share learning from the review with relevant staff members.

Summary

Mr C said that there was a long-standing history of complaints of low-level noise from an industrial estate close to his home but that the council failed to properly investigate these. He also said that when owners of the site applied for planning permission in 2014, a report presented to the planning committee failed to accurately report the noise issues.

We investigated the complaint and also took independent planning advice. We found that from December 2011, the council had issued noise abatement notices in respect of the site but that the owners had failed to comply. After Mr C complained in 2012, the council visited the premises concerned and witnessed a number of noise issues about which they issued a further abatement notice. The owners were sent written warnings and advised of the penalties of non-compliance. No further complaints were received in 2012. Thereafter, the owners applied for planning permission and there was no doubt that the relevant committee report contained erroneous information. However, this was corrected orally at the planning committee meeting to discuss the application. Notwithstanding the error, we further found that noise was not a material consideration when determining the application. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about care provided to her father (Mr A) by the council on a specific day, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We looked at information provided by Miss C and the council about what happened on the day. Both accounts agreed there was an incident with Mr A, but they did not agree about the reason for it. There was no conclusive evidence of the reason for the incident, which could have helped to prove whether the care provided was adequate in the circumstances. In the absence of this evidence, or any independent evidence of what actually happened, we could not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, although we did not uphold the complaint, we had concerns about specific actions of the staff member involved, and we made recommendations to address these concerns.

The council's responses to Miss C's complaint focused on the days before and after the day she complained about. The council told us this was to assess whether what happened on the specific day could have been predicted, or if the care provided could have had an effect on Mr A. The council should have explained this to Miss C.

It appears that no action was taken when Miss C first reported her complaint to the council, and there were delays when they did deal with her complaint. We found the council did not, as they should have, interrogate evidence provided by their staff thoroughly, in order to resolve a lack of clarity in the evidence given by staff. Our main concern was that the council failed to tell Miss C that she had the right to refer her complaint to a social work complaints review committee, which meant she was denied the opportunity to have her complaint heard fully through the correct process. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• discuss the timing of a phone call with the staff member, to ensure that in future cases they prioritise the patient they are with;
• ensure that points for improvement arising from a discussion between a manager and Miss C's parents are fed back to the staff member, so this general approach can be applied in future;
• ensure that home care staff and management know how to deal with complaints about their service, and how to signpost them to the correct formal process when necessary;
• feed back to staff involved in this complaint the need for them to interrogate evidence thoroughly; and
• ensure that where they handle complaints through the social work complaints process, complainants are always signposted to the complaints review committee.