Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of several concerns he brought to their attention in relation to health and safety at a caravan site. In particular, Mr C was concerned that he contacted the council about health and safety concerns about an unfenced bridge on the site but several months later the bridge was still unfenced, and the council did not tell him that they did not consider this to be a health and safety issue (as they are required to do under their policy, if they decide not to investigate a reported issue). Mr C also said that statements by the council that signs on the site had been updated and that raised manhole covers had been addressed were incorrect. Mr C said that, although some signs had now been updated, this was not done at the time the council said it was. In relation to the manhole covers, Mr C said there were a number of manhole covers which were raised above ground level, which he considered to be a tripping risk (and he provided some photographs of these).

The council said they had inspected the unfenced bridge and raised this with the site owners, but did not intend to take any further formal action (as there was no significant health and safety breach). The council also said that signs on the site had been updated, and provided photographs of these. In relation to the raised manholes, the council explained that this was a misunderstanding. Their previous statements that the manholes had been fixed referred to concerns that the manholes had inadequate covers, and that there was a risk of vermin or small children accessing the manhole. The council said they were now satisfied that this had been addressed, and provided photographs of the work. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the raised manholes constituting a tripping risk, the council said they did not share these concerns and did not consider this to be a health and safety risk.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had complied with their policy in responding to Mr C's concerns about the bridge, and had kept him updated about the overall work on the site, as well as offering to meet to discuss all of his outstanding concerns. We accepted that the misunderstanding about the manholes appeared to be a communication error, and we found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in determining that the manholes no longer constituted a health and safety risk. In relation to the signage, we noted that both parties agreed signage had now been updated, and so we did not consider that there was value in pursuing this matter further.

Summary

Mr C kept items of property in a locked storage cupboard on the ground floor of his building. Mr C tried to gain access to the cupboard but the lock had been changed. Mr C discovered that council staff had changed the lock and had given the key to a neighbour. Mr C complained to the council, but was not satisfied with their response. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to check whether the storage cupboard was in use or owned before changing the lock, and that the explanation given to him about why his complaint was rejected was inadequate.

The council confirmed that they did fail to check whether the storage cupboard was in use. We found inconsistencies in the council's investigation of Mr C's complaint, and we felt their decision was based on flawed or incomplete information, which meant their explanation to Mr C was inadequate. We also found that the council failed to respond to Mr C's complaint within the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reinvestigate Mr C's case in order to clarify the inconsistencies, and provide evidence for a full and accurate account of events, then reconsider Mr C's claim for reimbursement notifying us of the outcome;
• apologise to Mr C for the mishandling of his complaint;
• remind relevant staff of the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure in relation to timeframes, and delays or extensions; and
• raise the complaints handling failings with relevant staff to ensure a similar situation does not recur.

Summary

Mr C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council gave his client (Mr A) misleading advice about the storage of his belongings during a homelessness application, and that they unreasonably delayed in responding to Mr A's requests for assistance.

Mr A's property was being repossessed, and there was likely to be a period between him leaving that property and taking up a new tenancy. Mr A said that he had been told by the council that, if he were to become homeless during this period, the council could provide storage for his belongings. He was later told that the council's policy had changed and they could no longer provide storage. However, in Mr A's case, storage was not required as the council had secured an extension to the repossession of his property, meaning he could move directly to a new property. Although we recognise that the process of making a homelessness application was very stressful for Mr A, we were satisfied that the council did not mislead Mr A. We accept their reasoning that storage was not needed as they were able to negotiate an extension to the repossession of Mr A's property which allowed time for him to be offered a permanent housing arrangement.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to communicate with Mr A following his referral from an NHS service to the council's customer and community services team. We noted the impact that Mr A said the delay in communication had on his existing poor health. The council had acknowledged the delay and apologised for it, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations. We were satisfied that the council had apologised and taken appropriate action to try to prevent this from happening again.

Summary

Since 2011, Mrs C had been raising issues with the council about the damage caused to her boundary fence by the council's grass-cutting contractor. Although her complaints were referred directly to the contractor, she received no response. The damage to her fence continued each year, and each year she contacted the council to complain about the work of the contractor. In September 2014, she complained again when the contractor's machine slipped down a bank beside her fence which was further damaged when the machine was pulled out. She complained again at a later date and a claim was submitted to the contractor who did not uphold her claim, stating that the fence was in a very poor condition. Mrs C escalated her complaint to the council, and they investigated but did not uphold her complaint.

Our investigation considered all the communication between Mrs C and the council, the council's records of their contact with Mrs C, and the complaints handling procedure. We found that, although it was not possible to assess whether the fence had been damaged by the contractor, the council had not ensured that the contractor had provided an adequate level of service and had not dealt reasonably with her complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the handling of Mrs C's complaints about the contractor;
• review how complaints referred to contractors are logged and recorded on the council's system;
• consider what steps to take to ensure that complaints to contractors working on the council's behalf are reasonably handled; and
• consider whether some form of financial redress is appropriate to reflect the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that her child's school had not reasonably addressed reports of bullying or provided support to her child. The council investigated and found that there was no evidence that bullying had taken place or that this was the cause of the anxiety and stress that her child was suffering from.

Mrs C was unhappy and brought her complaint to us. Our investigation found that the council did not consider the incidents to be bullying as the other pupil involved had significant additional support needs which caused their behaviour towards Mrs C's child. We considered that this was in line with the anti-bullying policy in place at the time. We also found that the school was small and that, although it was clear that steps had been taken to keep the children apart, this was difficult to achieve. There was evidence that support had been provided to Mrs C's child for his specific needs, including the difficult relationship with the other pupil.

However, we considered that the council had inappropriately made reference to Mrs C's relationship with the school in their complaint report rather than centring on her child. We found evidence of an incident between the children that had not been included in the Council's report and considered that this did not provide reassurance that all matters had been included when assessing Mrs C's concerns. We also considered that there was no evidence that the school had assessed the potential impact on Mrs C's child before proposing a strategy to inform visiting staff of the difficulties in the class. Finally, we found that the council's complaint investigation had not fully considered the impact of the situation at the school on Mrs C's child in terms of their anxiety and stress. On balance, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had charged him a call-out fee for their shared repair service. The council advised that there would be a call-out charge if the issue was not considered as an emergency. When a council officer attended Mr C's property it did not appear to be an emergency and no action was taken, and a call-out charge was issued to Mr C.

We found that Mr C had been informed of the possibility of a call-out charge and there was no evidence that the issue should have been noted as an emergency. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not informed him that they were no longer pursuing a proposed scheme to reduce parking pressures near his home. Mr C became aware of this when the council changed the road markings outside his house, and they were not to the style indicated in the previous proposal. Mr C said he had not been informed of the proposed change to the road markings. Mr C also complained that the council had not carried out a risk assessment prior to the change, and had not responded reasonably to his concerns about speeding, or his complaint about the above matters.

We found that the council had concluded their consultation on the first proposal and published their findings. The decision to alter the road markings was an entirely separate process. The council put up notices and placed an advert in a newspaper about the change to the road markings, in line with their statutory duties. We also noted that the council were not required to send individual notices to each resident. Therefore, we did not uphold these complaints.

We also found that the council were not required to carry out a risk assessment prior to changing the road markings as they were not considered radical changes. We did not uphold this complaint.

When Mr C reported concerns about speeding on his road, the council conducted a speed survey. The results of this indicated that the average speed of drivers was below the speed limit and the council took no further action. We found that the council had responded to Mr C's concerns and complaint in a timely manner and with reasonable responses. Therefore, we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that it took the council over four months to identify the cause of a leak to the living room window at his former home, and also the time taken to complete the work. He was unhappy with the disruption caused to his family and with the council's refusal to refund one month's rent.

We were satisfied that the council's initial action was reasonable and in accordance with their repairs policy when Mr C first reported the problem. However, there was a lack of evidence to show the action that the council took following a further inspection around three weeks later when the leak continued. The council's refusal to refund one month's rent was on the basis that they did not consider the property was uninhabitable and that alternative accommodation had been offered. On reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that the council's position was reasonable.

In relation to the time taken to complete the work, we found that the inspections carried out were within the council's timescales and that repair work was also done within a reasonable timescale.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their record-keeping process with a view to ensuring that accurate records are maintained when arranging and completing repair work in line with their repairs timescales; and
• review their guidance to consider including the timescales for repair work.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for the development of a local sports ground. Mr C said the council's report to the development management sub-committee contained significant errors and omissions and that, as a result, the committee did not make its decision on the basis of all the material considerations as required by law. Mr C listed eight separate areas where he considered there to be failings by the council. This included that there was an unreasonable failure by the council to adequately assess the information provided by the applicant about the height of the stadium, the size (footprint) of the development and attendance figures, and to ensure that this was correct. Mr C also said the council unreasonably failed to have regard to, and report properly on, the independent report obtained by consultants on the methodology used in the transport submission to the planning application.

We obtained independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a planning adviser. Our adviser did not find failings by the council in six of the eight areas identified by Mr C in his complaint. On the first of the remaining two areas, our adviser considered that the council did not unreasonably fail to adequately assess the information provided by the applicant about the height of the stadium, the size (footprint) of the development and attendance figures, and ensure that this was correct, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, our adviser was concerned about the planning report's lack of clarity in relation to the height dimensions detailed in Mr C's complaint so we made a recommendation to address this.

On the second matter, we accepted the council's view that they were not required to include every detail of the consultants' report in their planning report. However, we were concerned that, having commissioned an external assessment by consultants on the transport methodology used in this case (in response to concerns raised about the way in which the transport impacts of the proposed development had been handled by the council) the council did not adequately report the consultants' views in their planning report to committee, so we upheld Mr C's complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that staff are aware of the need to provide appropriate descriptions/definitions of the dimensions being used in planning reports to committee;
• feed back our decision to the staff involved in this case; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his social work complaint. The council convened a social work complaints review committee (CRC) to hear Mr C's complaint, but did so on the basis of written submissions from both Mr C and the social work department, rather than allowing Mr C to attend in person. Mr C complained to us about the appropriateness of the decision to hold the hearing in private and also about the overall delay in responding to his complaint. In addition, he complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate reasons to support the eventual decision not to uphold his complaint.

We considered that the council had taken reasonable steps in order to ensure that a fair and balanced review of Mr C's complaint was carried out. They had undertaken an assessment of the risks involved in him attending the CRC meeting in person, and Mr C and the social work department were given equal opportunity to submit written representations. We were satisfied that this fulfilled the council's statutory obligations, and that their decision to hold the hearing in private did not contravene the relevant directions. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

However, we were concerned with the level of information provided to Mr C by the council in support of the decision. We considered it reasonable to expect a fuller explanation of the reasons underpinning the decision to have been provided, particularly as Mr C was not given the opportunity to attend the hearing. Further, while we noted that this case raised particular challenges for the council, we considered that the overall time it took them to respond to Mr C's complaint was unreasonable. We upheld these two aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to provide full and appropriate reasons for the decision not to uphold his complaint;
• provide Mr C with a more detailed explanation of how the CRC arrived at their decision not to uphold his complaint;
• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in responding to his complaint; and
• review their handling of Mr C's complaint with a view to identifying learning points and ensuring future compliance with their statutory obligations.