Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been required by the council to pay an additional fee when renewing his taxi licence. The payment was for the provision of a taxi marshal service, which had then taken 22 months to provide. Mr C said he believed the council had acted unreasonably. Mr C also said his complaint on the matter had been ignored by the council.

We found that the payment was taken prior to the scheme being set up, as it was a requirement that taxi administration be self-funding. It was, therefore, unavoidable that there would be some delay between the payment being taken and the scheme starting. The council had provided evidence that the creation of the new position required a significant re-organisation of the operational area in which it sat. It had then subsequently been delayed by a change in legislation. We found that the council had kept the taxi liaison group properly informed during this period and that there was no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the scheme. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The council had acknowledged that their initial response to Mr C's complaint was late. We found that this was due to human error, rather than systemic failure and although we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, it was not proportionate to make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that in considering a planning application to extend the house next to his, the council failed to carry out what he considered to be a reasonable assessment of the privacy, daylight and amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings) to his home. He said that the developer should have been required to submit plans which clearly showed the proximity and impact of the proposals on his home. He also felt that the application had not been assessed against the relevant planning policies.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, while it may have been preferable for the drawings accompanying and supporting the application to have also shown neighbouring properties in outline, this was offset by the fact that council officers had made a site visit. We also found that, although Mr C said the council failed to follow their own guidance, there was no relevant guidance in place at the time. New guidance was in draft and was only published on the day that planning permission was formally granted. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's garden bordered a field. The council granted planning permission for a residential development on the field. To achieve the desired ground levels for the new site, it was necessary for the developer to dig down some three metres. This resulted in a steep banking being created, running the length of Mr C's western boundary, partly in the garden of one of the new properties and the remainder within an amenity space (an area designed to enhance enjoyment of the surroundings) at the development. Mr C found that his garden ground was being eroded with earth slipping down the banking into the new development. He complained to the council about the lack of retaining wall but was advised that this was not something that would normally be considered under the remit of a planning application. They maintained that this would normally be included by the applicant as part of their proposal, rather than at the insistence of the council. The council also advised Mr C that it was not a building control matter and that he should seek legal advice if he felt the actions of others had had a negative impact on his property.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had consistently maintained that no specific consideration was given to stability as this was considered to fall outwith the remit of the planning service. The adviser did not agree with this approach and considered that, given the significant change in ground level from Mr C's property to the new development, this should have been a material consideration in the council's planning report. We also found that there had been issues with a condition that was attached to the new development's planning permission and that this had caused confusion for local residents such as Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C with an apology for the errors surrounding the condition in question within the planning application;
• provide evidence of the new processes that are in place to prevent a recurrence of such an issue with planning conditions in future;
• issue Mr C with an apology for the failure to take all material considerations into account when determining the planning application; and
• consider how they can assist Mr C to stabilise his entire western boundary at no cost to himself, or otherwise facilitate this outcome. If following consideration, this is not possible, appropriate financial redress should be offered to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained about the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) after they extinguished a fire he had set to dispose of garden waste. They had received a call from a member of public to say that the fire was in a public park. However, Mr C informed them that the fire was actually on his property, which borders the park. The decision was taken to extinguish the fire nonetheless, as they considered that there was the risk of repeat calls requiring further emergency responses.

We found that decisions to extinguish controlled fires are taken at the discretion of the attending officers. As there was no evidence of administrative or service failure in the decision-making process, we found that the decision to extinguish the fire was a discretionary one the SFRS were entitled to take, and that they had acted reasonably in making this decision.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed until 2014 to notify her of works to her home carried out under a statutory notice served in 2007. She said it was only in 2014 that she was informed of the amount of money that she owed. She also complained that the council failed to follow the correct tendering process when carrying out the works.

We found that the original statutory notices were issued to her agent at the time and it would, therefore, have been the agent's responsibility to pass this information on to Miss C. We also looked at the tendering processes followed by the council and noted that they were not required to follow an open tender process for each statutory notice served. We found that the council had used their major works framework agreement when tendering for this work and that this was in line with their obligations. For this reason, we did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh. In 2007 the council issued a statutory notice requiring repairs to a rooftop drying green shared by several properties. The property owners did not appoint a contractor of their own and the council took over responsibility for the works. The owners were provided with an initial estimate of the cost of the works. However, once the work had started, this escalated substantially. Ms C raised a number of concerns about the lack of information as to why the price had changed so much, the council's failure to explain their minimum charges and additional work carried out at extra cost without consultation with the owners.

We were critical of the council's handling of the sizeable cost increase. Whilst there was no suggestion that the work was unnecessary, we found that they could have provided a more realistic estimate at the beginning of the process to better manage the owners' expectations. We were not concerned by their communication of the minimum charges and were generally satisfied that the additional works were added to the project reasonably. However, we commented on the way that these works were communicated to the owners.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their poor communication throughout the repairs project;
• consider how they may better research the likely cost of repairs when issuing their initial estimates; and
• pay Ms C the sum of £250 in acknowledgement of the time and trouble she had to go to to obtain clarification of the works being carried out and their associated costs.