Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the social work department's handling of his concerns regarding his mother. This complaint was considered by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) and was partly upheld. However, Mr C was concerned that the CRC had not been properly conducted and he complained to us about this. He raised concerns that the CRC stopped him from making submissions or asking questions on occasion, which he said meant he had no reasonable opportunity to present his case. He also raised concerns that no minutes were taken at the CRC and there was no reasonable record of the discussion on which the CRC's decision was based.

The council said Mr C had ample opportunity to make submissions and ask questions of witnesses. Although the council acknowledged that the chair of the committee curtailed some of Mr C's questions and submissions, they said this was because he was repeating information or raising points that were not relevant to the complaint. In relation to the records, the council provided a copy of the CRC minute, the decision letter and the handwritten notes from the CRC clerk. The council also noted that there was no requirement to keep a transcript or verbatim record of the CRC hearing.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mr C had been inappropriately stopped from making submissions or questioning witnesses, and the CRC records showed Mr C had an opportunity to present his case, refer to documents and ask questions over several hours. In relation to the records, we accepted that there was no specific requirement to keep a verbatim account of the hearing, but we considered that the council should keep sufficient records of the evidence and arguments considered in order to explain the reasons for their decision. We found, on balance, that the council's records were reasonable. While the decision letter was brief, it did identify the points of complaint which were upheld and not upheld, as well as setting out the CRC's findings and conclusions on each point.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about the repairs the council did to his home following water ingress. He was also unhappy that he was told he would have to pursue the council's contractor if he wanted to make a compensation claim stemming from those repairs, and also with the way that the council handled his complaint.

Mr C had reported water ingress before and the council had arranged repairs as part of an upcoming maintenance project. He reported water ingress again around a year later, in January 2012, and the council attended promptly to lay sheeting in his loft. The evidence indicated that they did work to the slates on his roof in February 2012. However, in July 2012 another repair was needed which identified a problem with their contractor's workmanship during the historic maintenance project. In assessing whether the council had acted reasonably, we found that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's reports and we did not uphold his first complaint. However, as the council neither acknowledged nor responded to Mr C's complaint within the relevant timescales, we upheld his second complaint.

In terms of Mr C being told to raise his compensation claim with the council's contractor, only a court can determine liability. Our role was limited to considering the council's administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council investigated Mr C's claim and passed the relevant information to their claim handlers, whose advice was that the council were not legally liable. Although any compensation claim would still have had to be raised with their contractor, the council agreed a rent rebate and offered Mr C a discretionary payment for his inconvenience. We recognised that, as a council tenant, Mr C felt he should raise concerns with his landlord and we were critical that, on the basis of the paperwork available, there was no clear statement for tenants of the council's position regarding such claims (for example, an information leaflet). In light of the steps taken by the council, we could not say there had been maladministration in reaching their final position and we did not uphold this complaint. In the circumstances, however, we did make recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his complaint;
• work with Mr C to clarify whether their contractor remains in business and how he would go about raising a claim against them; and
• consider how they can improve ease of access for tenants in making such claims against contractors in future (for example, updating relevant leaflets, correspondence and / or paperwork).

Summary

Mr C said the council did not properly consider the local plan, or his objections, when approving a planning application for a nearby development. He also considered that the development did not comply with conditions on the planning approval, and was concerned that the council was not taking formal enforcement action.

The council said the planning officer's report showed they had considered Mr C's objections and the local plan in determining the application. While the council agreed that parts of the development did not fully comply with the approved plans, they said they were taking action to address this. This action included works to improve road safety, as well as requesting a new planning application for parts of the development which had not been built according to the plan. However, the council said they would not consider formal enforcement action until the development was complete (including the approved amendments). The development was completed during our investigation, and the council then issued a formal enforcement notice.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had considered all of Mr C's objections and the local plan in determining the application. In relation to enforcement, the adviser said it was reasonable for the council to wait until the development was fully completed before considering formal action. The adviser also explained that the council has a broad discretion in deciding what (if any) enforcement action to take and, therefore, we found the council did not unreasonably fail to enforce the planning conditions. However, we found that on one occasion the council delayed unreasonably in following up action they told Mr C they would take. We also found that one of the planning conditions was unclearly written, and the council acted inconsistently in deciding that the condition was met, although the actual works it specified had not been carried out.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in following through the actions they told him they would take;
• remind relevant staff of the Scottish Government's guidance on planning conditions relating to precision and enforceability; and
• ensure our findings about the inconsistent approach to condition three are fed back to both planning and transportation staff for learning and improvement.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about the waste provision for her building, as there were ten communal wheelie bins which were often not collected as scheduled. The council upheld her complaint and agreed to conduct a review. They also agreed to replace the wheelie bins with larger communal bins where possible, as there was some confusion about which team should collect the bins.

When the bins had still not been replaced one month later, Ms C emailed the council for an update but did not receive a response. She emailed two further times and again did not get a response, so she brought her complaint to us.

We contacted the council, who said that there had been delays due to competing priorities but agreed to carry out the review. However, Ms C was keen to ensure that the communication issues she had experienced were also addressed. The council accepted that they had failed to respond to her emails, so we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified; and
• contact Ms C to discuss her building's waste provision.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council after being expelled from a council venue whilst distributing literature to other members of the public. During our investigation it became clear that the council staff involved were not aware of the relevant policy at the time of the incident, which led to poor communication with Mr C about why he was being asked to leave. The council had since apologised for this, and provided training to all relevant staff on this matter, which we found to be reasonable. On review of the policy in question, it also became clear that the council staff had discretion to make the decision to expel Mr C, so we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

He also complained that the council had failed to follow their complaints procedure. We found that they had failed to stick to their timescales for acknowledging Mr C's complaint, and also failed to contact Mr C to discuss the investigation, despite agreeing to do so. We upheld this complaint, but commented that we did not feel the failings identified would have affected the outcome of the council's investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to contact Mr C as agreed during their investigation of his complaint, and for the delay in acknowledging his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to repair his floor as it had been damaged by council contractors doing improvement work in his home. He was also unhappy that, when upgrading his bathroom, the council contractors had damaged a shower which belonged to him and which he told them he wanted to keep. Following investigation, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to action their commitment regarding the flooring. The council have apologised to Mr C and will arrange with Mr C for the work to take place. As the council have already taken action on this, we did not make a recommendation.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the broken shower because we found no evidence to support his recollection that the council were made aware that he wanted to keep the shower.

Summary

Mr C complained that, after serving an emergency statutory notice on his property, the council unreasonably failed to inform him of the costs of associated works, and that they failed to tell him of the increasing cost of these works. In addition, he complained that the council failed to comply with their standing orders when procuring works for three statutory notices, and then failed to manage the works properly in line with the correct procedures.

We found that the council were not required to inform homeowners of the costs of the emergency notice in advance as, by their very nature, emergency works may be needed before the costs are known. The council provided us with some evidence which suggested that Mr C was notified at the time of the increasing costs of the works. Therefore, we concluded that there was not enough evidence to show that he was not informed of the escalating costs. We did not uphold these elements of his complaint.

We found that the council failed to have any reasonable record of the process they followed when tendering for the statutory notices. As a result, we were unable to say whether they followed their standing orders or the correct process. For this reason, we upheld this element of the complaint. We also found that the council had acknowledged carrying out non-emergency works under the emergency statutory notice. This removed the opportunity for neighbours to carry out the works themselves. We noted that the council took this step in order to keep the costs down for residents, as scaffolding was already erected. Nonetheless, the council itself had acknowledged that this was not the correct process, and we upheld this element of the complaint. We made a number of recommendations. These included that the council review their statutory notice procedures, that they refund the administration fee for two of the statutory notices, and that they clarify which aspects of the works were not of an emergency nature and refund the costs of the non-emergency work to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their statutory notice procedures to ensure that the correct procedures are followed when appointing contractors for works, and that they retain full and appropriate evidence of this process on file in order to demonstrate compliance with their procurement process and standing orders;
• review their procedures to ensure that only works of an emergency nature are carried out by the council;
• refund to Mr C the 15 percent administration fee charged for the works covered under the statutory notices referred to in the decision; and
• clarify which aspects of the works carried out under the emergency statutory notice were not of an emergency nature, and refund the costs of these non-emergency works to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to assess a planning application for a house next to his property. We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council had not assessed the site levels of the new house adequately, and had not correctly anticipated the size a screen fence would have to be to mitigate Mr C's concerns about the loss of privacy for his own property. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council did not impose a reasonable planning condition to mitigate the issue of overlooking. He was unhappy that his neighbour had not put up a screen fence and that the council had not taken action to enforce this. We found that the planning condition the council had relied on was not precise enough, and that there was considerable doubt as to whether the council would be able to successfully enforce the planning condition. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaint within a reasonable timescale. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint as there had been a considerable delay by the council in responding to the complaint and they had not acted in line with their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider recording the details of site visits in their files;
• consider facilitating the provision of an effective screen fence at their cost between the properties, if this is acceptable to Mr C;
• take steps to ensure that their use of planning conditions is in line with the Scottish Government's guidance on the use of conditions in planning permissions;
• issue a reminder to staff in their planning service that complaints must be dealt with in line with their complaints handling procedure; and
• issue a written apology to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C was an objector to a planning application considered by the council's planning committee. He believed that the report on handling considered by the committee contained a number of serious errors which meant the committee had been unable to make an accurate assessment of the application. In particular, Mr C said that the correct planning policies had not been followed and incorrect advice had been given by the council's flood prevention officer on the flood risk to an access road.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser said the report on handling had presented an appropriately balanced view of the application and the relevant policies. He said the council had been correct not to include historic reasons for refusal, as they were not applicable to the application under consideration.

Our investigation found that the council's flood prevention officer had acted proportionately in their assessment of the application and, specifically, the access road. Although the council had acknowledged an error in some of their correspondence, this was a matter of millimetres and they were entitled to take a view on whether this was materially significant. We also found the available evidence did not show the report's assessment of the access road was inadequate or inaccurate.

Summary

Mr C complained the council had failed to respond appropriately to his report of a collapsing building. He felt they had not acted quickly enough in response to the original report, which had left the public at risk. He also complained that too much time had been given to the owners of the property to resolve the problem and the council had failed to use their statutory powers appropriately. Mr C said that when the council had taken action and demolished the building, they had left the site in a dangerous condition, inappropriate for a conservation area. He said that the council had also not taken account of the conservation area status that protected the site, by seeking the appropriate consents, despite the 12 months from his first report to the actual demolition of the site. He also complained that part of his boundary wall was demolished unnecessarily.

Our investigation found the council had acted appropriately by giving the owners of the building a reasonable length of time to repair the problem, which would have avoided demolition in a conservation area. The building had continued to deteriorate and the council, acting on the advice of a structural engineer, had had no choice but to demolish the structure. Responsibility for the site remained with the owners and the council had gone beyond their statutory obligations in erecting flood defences. There was no evidence that the boundary wall had been unnecessarily demolished, as it had been taken down as part of making the site safe.