Local Government

Summary

Mr C told us he received an enforcement notice from the council's debt recovery agent, which said he owed money for unpaid non-domestic rates. Mr C had never had a business or paid non-domestic rates in the council's area. He asked the council to confirm that he did not owe the money, and that his credit rating would not be adversely affected. He asked the council to explain how the error had occurred. Mr C sent a further email after two weeks and, when he did not receive any reply, made a complaint. Even taking into account that the council said they did not receive Mr C's first email, we found it had taken them too long to reply to him and to confirm that he was not the person who owed them money. They exceeded their target timescale for replying to correspondence. There was no evidence that they prioritised Mr C's correspondence considering the error he was alleging or the fact he had made a complaint.

The council's explanations about why the enforcement notice was sent were confused and inaccurate. Due to Mr C's efforts in pursuing the matter, the council later accepted that he should have been sent a much softer letter in order to establish whether he was the person they were trying to find.

We found that the council had not provided a reasonable response to Mr C's complaint. His complaint was acknowledged and responded to within the target timescales at each stage and, rightly, the responses contained an acknowledgement of and apology for the delay. However, at each stage they failed to address the substantive point about the letter sent to Mr C in error.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified and for the distress he has outlined; and
• inform Mr C what steps are being taken to address these failings.

Summary

Ms C received a letter from her children’s school outlining the options available to the school in accommodating classes for the next academic year. Ms C believed that a further option was available that had not been considered, so she raised this with the school. The school distributed a second letter stating that this further option had been considered and outlining why it had been rejected. Ms C complained to the council about several aspects of the school's decision and then brought her complaints to us.

Ms C said that the potential further option had not been considered by the school. We considered that the reasons the school gave for the option being rejected had been referred to in their first letter and that, therefore, there was evidence that the option had been considered. We decided that, in these circumstances, there was no evidence of the alleged maladministration or service failure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the service he received from Business Gateway in relation to applications for grants for his new business. He said that he was encouraged to apply for grants but, when his applications were unsuccessful, staff did not respond reasonably to his requests for further information and assistance. When he complained about the service, he said that the council had handled his complaint poorly, and outside the appropriate response timescales.

We noted a lack of contemporary evidence on what was discussed at some of Mr C's meetings with Business Gateway. However, we did not find any evidence that Mr C had been given inaccurate information, though we did note that more detailed information could have been made available about the eligibility criteria for grants. We identified issues with the way that staff informed Mr C of the outcome of his applications, and how clear this information was. His applications had not been successful, but this was not clear from the emails Mr C initially received after a panel considered his applications.

When Mr C complained to the council, they did not initially handle his correspondence as a complaint. We agreed with Mr C that the council were inappropriately applying the timescales in their complaints handling procedure, by taking the day they received a complaint as 'day 0' rather than 'day 1'. Mr C also made a claim for compensation, which he complained had not be appropriately considered. While we found that there was no evidence that the council's legal department had appropriately considered this claim, we explained that it is not our role to assess claims for compensation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider reviewing the information on grant applications to provide more detail in relation to the definitions of ineligibility criteria;
• consider revising their customer service standards leaflet to explain what may happen if an applicant is initially unsuccessful with their grant application, in terms of being provided with the opportunity to provide additional supporting information;
• remind all relevant staff of the importance of handling complaints in line with the complaints handling procedure and the importance of providing a full response to the issues raised;
• provide a full response to Mr C in relation to his claim for compensation; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C told us that, in error, the council had opened the grave in which his son was buried. When the family discovered the grave had been disturbed, they contacted the council and were initially told the grave had been dug to the depth of two feet and then filled in. We found that the council had not provided a clear and consistent account as the grave had, in fact, been fully prepared for a burial.

The council explained that the mistake was down to administrative error, in that the wrong section row had been identified by a member of administrative staff. Gravediggers also failed to notice or question why the plaque at the grave did not match the details recorded on their work instruction.

We found the council's handling of Mr C's complaint to be relatively poor in view of the clear failings which had caused considerable distress and upset. The complaint was not treated with the degree of priority that it should have been, and Mr C did not receive a proper response to his request for a meeting.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• give a full apology for the distress caused and for the failings identified in this case, and offer an opportunity for the complainants to meet with the chief executive; and
• demonstrate that the lessons learned from this complaint have been communicated to relevant staff members.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of her clients, Mr and Mrs A. Mr and Mrs A were unhappy with the council's actions relating to a compulsory purchase order and repairs to a core path. A number of the issues complained of occurred outwith the last twelve months and we did not pursue those matters further. We upheld a complaint that the council failed to advise Mr and Mrs A promptly when the council revised their view on repairing the core path and began to consider a compulsory purchase order. We recommended that the council apologise to Mr and Mrs A for this delay, which they did. We did not uphold complaints about the council's overall communication with Mr and Mrs A.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs A for not advising them in a timely manner of their revised position in relation to their right to enter Mr and Mrs A's land without their permission.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council as he said that plastering repairs to his property had been outstanding since he moved in and were still not completed over a year later. We found the council's records showed that he had been asked on a number of occasions to strip the wallpaper in his home to allow a full inspection to take place. The council had only received notification that this had taken place a couple of months prior to Mr C's complaint.

There had been some further delays since then, and the works had not been completed until around two months after the estimated completion date. However, the reasons for this were beyond the council's control, and we were satisfied from their records that they had taken reasonable action to ensure the works were completed as quickly as possible.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the actions of his local community council. The council told Mr C that they could not consider his complaints until he had exhausted the complaints procedure of the community council. They had previously told him this in relation to another complaint he made about the community council. Mr C was dissatisfied with aspects of the council's response and complained to them that their response had contained inaccuracies and that their position was unreasonable. The council repeated their previous response to Mr C. Mr C was dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. We found that the council's response to his first complaint was reasonable, and did not uphold that complaint. However, we found that the issues Mr C raised in his second complaint were not the same as those in his first complaint and, therefore, that the council's response to this complaint was unreasonable. We upheld Mr C's second complaint.

Summary

Mr C was receiving an individual budget from the council under a self-directed support pilot scheme. Mr C was responsible for arranging his own social care support in line with a plan and outcomes he agreed with the council. At the end of the pilot scheme Mr C was asked by the council to repay £1050 which he had withdrawn from the individual budget in cash. The council said Mr C had failed to prove the money had been used to meet agreed outcomes. Mr C said he had given the council clear evidence of legitimate expenditure.

Mr C complained about the way the council had treated his complaint. In particular he said he was not given an opportunity to contribute his evidence to the process before a decision was made.

We found that when Mr C wrote to the council they failed to tell him the matter was being treated as a financial appeal rather than as a complaint. They incorrectly said their resource allocation panel amounted to a statutory appeal process. The council assessed the complaint under their corporate complaints handling procedure when the complaints should rightly have been considered and assessed for eligibility under the statutory social work complaint process. We asked the council to review their handling of Mr C's complaint.

We found that Mr C was not given a proper opportunity to contribute his evidence to the financial appeal process before it was considered by the resource allocation panel.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the handling of this complaint taking into account the council's statutory obligations in respect of social work complaints and advise Mr C and us of the outcome; and
• offer Mr C the opportunity to provide further details and / or evidence of the disputed expenditure and provide a further response which fully and clearly deals with all points not already addressed.

Summary

Ms A was a tenant of the council. After vacating her property, she received a bill for works to fix damage that had been caused by the installation and use of a dishwasher. She complained about this to the council as the dishwasher had been installed by the previous tenant. The council said that she had taken over the tenancy as a mutual exchange of properties with the previous tenant. She had signed an agreement to say that she was responsible for any repairs or replacements that the outgoing tenant had not dealt with. Ms A was dissatisfied and her partner (Mr C) brought her complaints to us. We found that the agreement was clear that Ms A was responsible and, therefore, there was no evidence of maladministration or service failure.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when, during roadworks, the council withdrew the normal bus service to his village. They said they did this because the process of keeping bus operators and the public informed as the roadworks progressed was complex and likely to fail. They considered that a taxi-bus service was the best solution based on experience at other locations. Mr C disagreed, saying that the actions taken by the council were disproportionate and created more disruption than was necessary.

Our investigation considered how the decision was taken and how it was communicated. We found that the council took the decision to keep public buses out of the village during roadworks because road closures would require them to reverse, which is considered unsafe. The local bus service was advised of this. We also found that, before the works started, the council held a public exhibition, they issued letters to residents and businesses, and they placed a notice in the local newspaper and in public areas. The information provided included details about the replacement taxi-bus service. This meant that the council had followed their policy, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.