Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council refused his request for a disabled parking bay outside his home. He has mobility problems following a stroke, and is a wheelchair user. Mr C's wife also has limited mobility, and they are both registered deaf, blind and are blue badge holders.

We found that Mr C's request had been assessed appropriately by the council in line with the legislation, and with the council's own policy. Mr C and his wife did not meet the criteria, as they do not have a vehicle that is suitable for their use registered to them at their home address. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to assess and check that there were suitable alternatives in place which would allow Mr C and his wife to be picked up and dropped off safely when they were taken out. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of a planning application for additional parking along his parents' street. He said that the council had not fully considered several material planning considerations when they granted consent with conditions, and that he had not been given an opportunity to speak at the council meeting when the application was determined. He also complained that, when he reported to the council that conditions on the planning consent had not been met, the council did not take any enforcement action.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. He noted the procedures which the council had implemented in handling the planning application, and the presentation of the various different issues raised as objections to the application. He reviewed how these had been presented and considered in the report on the application, and considered that the council had taken a reasonable approach to each of the concerns raised. The adviser also noted appropriate consultations with the council's roads department. He reviewed the procedures in relation to public hearings, and was satisfied that the council had applied these appropriately. In terms of following up on the conditions of the consent, the adviser was satisfied that the approach taken by the council had been reasonable, though they noted the extended timescales involved, which were not in line with the council's Enforcement Charter.

We found that the council had followed their procedures appropriately in relation to their consideration and determination of the planning application. We also considered that it was in line with their policies not to allow for public presentations at the council meeting, in relation to this application. In relation to potential enforcement action, we were satisfied that they had taken a reasonable approach in not taking formal enforcement action. However, we were critical that they had not taken prompt action, and that they had not kept Mr C informed of what was happening.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the slow responses to his enquiries and provide him with information about what work remains outstanding, when the council expect completion, and what action they will take if conditions remain outstanding.

Summary

Mr C requested a variation to a planning permission granted to him. The original permission allowed the building of a house and outbuildings, but restricted the use of the outbuildings. Mr C wished to remove the restriction on business use for one outbuilding. He also wanted retrospective approval for the installation of a flue for a wood-burning stove in an outbuilding. The house had not been constructed at this time.

Mr C had engaged in extensive correspondence with the council about possible changes to the planning conditions. The council had responded to these, but had noted that he should seek independent planning advice. Mr C had submitted an application for retrospective planning permission for the stove flue, but this had been rejected.

Mr C complained that the council had not provided reasonable advice on altering the planning condition. He said that they had incorrectly stated he did not have permitted development rights to build the flue for the wood-burning stove. He also complained they had not responded reasonably to his complaint.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser said that the council had acted reasonably and proportionally in dealing with Mr C and in the advice provided by planning officers. We found the council had acted reasonably. Mr C had not taken independent planning advice, despite planning officers suggesting that he do so, and he had agreed to the planning application as submitted. The council had responded appropriately to his complaint, although it was accepted that he disagreed with their position.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that, contrary to the terms of a planning consent, they had allowed an existing road to be 'grubbed out' before a new road was laid. He said that they failed to take enforcement action on this breach of consent and that they failed to take reasonable steps when he reported safety concerns about the new road access.

We took independent advice from a chartered town planner and we found that when Mr C complained about the old road being removed, the council acted on his concerns and made two site visits. The council determined that the new road was acceptable in safety terms and, on this basis, declined to take enforcement action. This was a discretionary decision that they were entitled to take, so we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, although the council looked into Mr C's concerns about the new road access, they failed to give him a reasonable explanation as to why they did not intend to act on them. Because of this, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide an appropriate apology; and
• ensure that the terms of our decision are brought to the attention of those members of staff in the roads and planning department who were involved in the planning applications concerned.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the step at the gated footpath access to her house was broken by a contractor who was working for the council. Mrs C said the damage occurred while the contractor was replacing street lighting on the public footway outside the house.

Mrs C lodged a claim for the damaged step with the council. The council referred the claim to the contractor as they said it appeared from the information Mrs C had supplied that responsibility for the damage lay with the contractor. The council explained they had a contract with the contractor which required the contractor to have in place their own insurance. The council also stated that an indemnity clause in the contract meant that the council were not liable for any damage caused by the contractor and were not required to investigate matters that had been passed to third parties to manage in terms of the contract. The contractor subsequently rejected Mrs C's claim.

Mrs C complained to the council. We considered, from the evidence supplied to us, that it was reasonable for the council to have referred Mrs C's claim to the contractor and that the investigation of the claim and its outcome were a matter for the contractor. However, we also considered this did not absolve the council from addressing the concerns Mrs C had raised in her complaint about the alleged failure of the contractor in communicating with her. We found that no proper consideration had been given to whether Mrs C was still pursuing a claim for damages or making a complaint and that a lack of communication and coordination within the council had led to an unreasonable delay in the investigation of Mrs C's complaint. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• review their processes in relation to complaints handling in cases where more than one council department is involved; and where claims have been made against their contractors.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how school staff handled a report of bullying of her daughter. While Mrs C was satisfied with the handling of the matter at the time, she became concerned some months later when the pupils involved in the bullying behaviour were given additional opportunities within the school. She raised this with the school, as she thought that the bullying incident had been recorded on the pupils' education record, but the school told her the bullying was only recorded on the school's bullying log. Mrs C was dissatisfied with this, and she was also concerned that the school referred to the incident as an 'allegation of bullying' in their later correspondence with her, whereas she thought it had been agreed that bullying had occurred.

The council said the school handled the incident appropriately and in line with their bullying policy (which encourages a restorative approach). We asked the council to clarify whether they had found that bullying had occurred as this was not clear from the bullying log, and they confirmed that the incident had been recorded as one of bullying behaviour.

After investigating the matter, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. We found that staff complied with most aspects of the school's and the council's policies, including involving parents, arranging a restorative meeting and supporting Mrs C's daughter. However, the bullying log completed by the school did not match the form set out in the council's policy, so there was no detailed contemporaneous record of the investigation and findings. We also found that staff did not appear to be familiar with the school's bullying policy which required the incident to be recorded on the pupils' records, and they were following the council's bullying policy instead (which did not include this requirement).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and her daughter for failing to comply with some aspects of their policies in responding to their concerns about bullying; and
• review the school's bullying policy and reporting forms, to ensure that there is clear and consistent guidance on this process (and that this complies with the council's bullying policy and templates).

Summary

Mrs C complained about the removal of harassment points from her housing application. The main outcome she sought from the investigation of her complaint was to be rehoused. During our consideration of her case, Mrs C notified us of a change in address. We contacted Mrs C and asked that she confirm if she wished to proceed with the investigation. We did not receive a response. When we advised Mrs C that the case would be closed if we did not hear from her we still did not get a response, so we closed the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had levies added to his council tax liabilities across two years due to late payment. Mr C complained to the council that these levies were unreasonable because he had not received the correspondence in which the council had advised him of his liability and that his payment was overdue. Mr C was of the view that without proof of his receiving the correspondence the council were unable to add levies to his liability. The council told him that there was no requirement for them to provide such proof.

Mr C complained to us. We decided that there was no requirement for the council to provide the type of proof Mr C sought and that the council's actions in adding the levies had been reasonable, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C's mother was admitted to a care home and the council provided Ms C's family with a breakdown of the charges for the care home and invoiced the family accordingly. Following an admission to hospital, Ms C's mother returned to the care home, however, Ms C's family received no further invoices for the care home fees until the council wrote to them in the following year explaining that, following a recent review, it had been identified that, due to an administrative error, no invoices had been raised for the care home fees. Due to the amount of fees outstanding, a charging order was placed on Ms C's mother's property. Ms C complained to us that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to ensure that invoices for the care home fees were issued at the correct time.

Our investigation found that the council had made an administrative error in failing to invoice Ms C's family for the care home fees at the correct time – Ms C's mother's file was misfiled which led to her being omitted from the manual list of clients requiring yearly financial reassessment. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint. The council have recently introduced a system-generated automatic financial reassessment process which should prevent a similar situation occurring again in future.

We also had some concerns about the way in which the council had handled Ms C's complaint. The council had referred Ms C's complaint to a charging review panel on more than one occasion. This led to delays in responding to Ms C's complaint. Ms C's correspondence was not fully answered and the council's final response to Ms C's complaint failed to inform her of her right to submit her complaint to our office as the final stage in the complaints procedure. In light of this, we made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of complaints which are referred to a charging review panel to ensure that they are handled in line with the model complaints handling procedure for local authorities and legislative requirements; and
• provide Ms C with a full response to the four points she sought clarification on in her original complaint letter.

Summary

Ms C is a council tenant, as is her neighbour who lives above her. Ms C's complaint about the council arose from continuing noise issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. Ms C complained that the council had not acted reasonably in response to her ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour.

After investigating, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had taken action following the various incidents she reported and that they had taken steps to find solutions, although it was acknowledged that these were perhaps not as successful as was hoped. During our investigation, the council advised us that they had taken the majority of actions available to them in relation to the noise issues. While we did not uphold the complaint, we did recommend that the council consider the remaining minority of actions to determine whether there were any further steps that would be appropriate to take. As Ms C had indicated at points during the case that she would consider moving, we also recommended that the council look at this and, if Ms C wishes, determine how a move can be facilitated. Finally, Ms C highlighted some concerns about the way her case had been written about in internal documents by council staff. We agreed that some of the terms used were inappropriate and made a further recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider if there are any further actions available to them that would be appropriate to implement in this case, including any follow-up noise monitoring;
• consider how they can work together with Ms C to determine if she does currently wish to move to a new property and how this can be facilitated; and
• make staff aware of the importance of their choice of language in case notes and correspondence.