Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had removed items from her husband's grave. We found that the council had acted in line with the relevant policy (management rules for burials and cemeteries) and made reasonable efforts to inform Ms C in advance of the action. For this reason, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to repair his boiler. In particular, Mr C said he had contacted the council's gas engineers several times but each time they came out to repair the identified fault, the boiler would break down again. The evidence available confirmed that each time Mr C reported a fault with his boiler, an engineer would attend to repair it in line with the council's timescales. Therefore, it appeared that the council's gas engineers were attending to Mr C's boiler and carrying out repairs in line with the relevant procedure.

However, in light of the time and trouble experienced by Mr C, we asked the council to consider arranging for an independent inspection of the boiler in an effort to identify whether it was in fact fit for purpose and functioning properly. We also asked the council to consider making a payment to Mr C as a goodwill gesture. The council agreed to both requests and Mr C considered his complaint resolved.

Summary

Mr C was offered a property by the council, as he had been living in temporary accommodation. Mr C was unhappy with the condition of the property he was offered, and said that the bathroom, kitchen and windows were all in need of repair. Mr C had written to complain to the council about the property, but they said that they were satisfied that the property was suitable to be let out.

The council has a policy that sets out their criteria for determining the condition of properties, and, in line with this, their repairs team carried out some repairs on the property that they viewed as necessary. However, the council also said that cosmetic aspects, such as the fitting of tiles in the bathroom, were the responsibility of the tenant rather than the council. As the council's responses to Mr C were in line with their policy on this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C lives near a holiday chalet park with a history of planning applications and amendments.  The council had approved a retrospective planning application, subject to four conditions.  He complained to us about the way they handled a number of planning issues, including a failure to follow correct development plan policies, and to enforce the consent conditions.  He also said there was unauthorised activity at the site, and was unhappy with the council's complaints handling.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers.  We upheld Mr C's complaints about unreasonable failure or delay by the council to respond to and investigate information about unauthorised excavation and development at the site.  The council had accepted there was an unacceptable delay in acting on information received from Mr C, and that their expected standard of service had fallen short.  We took the view that these were serious failings which had, understandably, caused Mr C to lose confidence in the council (in its role as the planning authority) and to question their actions in relation to the chalet park.

We did not, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints.  Although the council had omitted a specific reference to certain development plan policies in the report of handling, we found no evidence that the council had not followed these policies.  We accepted that they had a right to exercise their discretion and to decide on the application as they saw fit.  We also found no breaches of the consent conditions for the council to enforce and were satisfied that the council had adequately investigated Mr C's complaint.  However, as there had been a lack of a full explanation on some matters in the report of handling and in the council's complaints correspondence with Mr C, we made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:

• ensure that our adviser's comments in relation to the omission of the policies in the report of handling, the lack of detail in the report and lack of explanation of how the council's judgement was exercised in relation to the planting scheme are brought to the attention of the relevant council staff and ensure that all relevant policies are appropriately referenced in reports of handling;
• ensure that our adviser's comments about a lack of an explanation of how the council's judgement was exercised in relation to the discharge of one of the consent conditions are brought to the attention of the relevant council staff;
• in relation to the failure to address this matter within the council's complaints process, remind staff of the need to ensure they provide full explanations when investigating and when responding to complaints;
• provide us with details of the steps the council now have in place to ensure the error referred to does not reoccur;
• apologise to Mr C for their failure to provide him with a proper explanation concerning the omission of relevant policies in relation to a regional scenic area from the report of handling;
• in relation to the failure to address this matter within the council's complaints process, remind staff of the need to ensure they provide full explanations when investigating and when responding to complaints;
• issue Mr C with an apology for having unreasonably failed to and/or delayed in responding to information received from him about unauthorised works at the site;
• issue Mr C with an apology for a failure to initially investigate reports of unauthorised development at the site;
• advise us on the current position in relation to monitoring of the development site; and
• ensure that our adviser's comments in relation to the lack of a proper explanation are shared with the relevant staff.

Previous History
Mr C originally submitted a complaint to us in June 2012 (case 201201234) about development at a holiday park.  We issued a decision in February 2013 in which we upheld the complaint.  Mr C then made a related and follow-up complaint (case 201302324) to us.  He complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow the correct policies and procedures in relation to the landscaping consent conditions on a planning application, to enforce the consent conditions, and to follow their own policy about a regional scenic area.

Mr C made a further related complaint (201304125) that the council delayed in responding to information about unauthorised excavation works and failed to investigate reports of unauthorised development.  We, therefore, closed complaint 201302324 and merged it with complaint 201304125 as we considered that both should be dealt with together.  Mr C then told us he was intending to make a further complaint about the same development.  We, therefore, closed complaint 201304125 in May 2014 pending receipt of the new complaint from Mr C so that all complaints relating to the development could be considered at the same time.

Summary

Mr C complained that his son's school had introduced a new policy on excursions that impacted unfairly on his son, who had a disability. Mr C said the school failed to consult him about the new policy and failed to take into account his son's needs and the Equality Act in developing the policy. Mr C also said the school applied the policy to his son in an unreasonable way, as they did not take into account his son's individual needs or ask his son's opinion when deciding whether an excursion would be suitable for him.

The council agreed that the school did not consult properly with parents of disabled pupils before they introduced the policy, but they said the school had now taken measures to improve their communication. However, the council said the school had taken the Equality Act and the needs of disabled pupils into account in developing the policy, and they had considered Mr C's son's individual needs when they applied the policy to him.

After investigating Mr C's concerns and taking independent equalities advice, we upheld the complaints. We found there was no evidence that the school had complied with their own Equality Policy or guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which sets out how organisations should take into account the public sector equality duty in developing new policies and making decisions. While the council said the policy complied with the Equality Act, there was no evidence that staff had actively considered the public sector equality duty or the impact of the policy on disabled students during the decision-making process. We also found there was no evidence the school took Mr C's son's individual needs into account when they applied the policy to him.

While we also found the school did not consult properly with parents before they introduced the policy, we accepted that the measures the school took to improve their communication were effective, as there was evidence that the school consulted parents appropriately when they later amended the policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
• remind school staff of the requirements of the public sector equality duty and the council's equality policy in relation to considering the equality impact of new policies and practices; and
• reconsider the excursion policy, taking into account the requirements of the Equality Act and the council's equality policy.

Summary

Miss C, a council tenant, complained about various aspects of the services she had received from the council. She complained that a warning marker had been put on her records, and had not been reviewed in line with policy. This marker indicated that staff should visit her in pairs. The council acknowledged that a warning indicator had been put on some of her records, and had not been reviewed, and they apologised for this. They gave assurances that none of her other records had indicators on them, but Miss C questioned this. We did not find any evidence of any other warning indicators, but were critical of the consistency of the information given to Miss C in relation to these indicators. In light of Miss C's complaint, the council told us that they had revised their procedure for recording warning indicators on customers' case notes.

Miss C also complained that there were numerous repairs required to her property, which had not been resolved by the council. We found that the council had tried to engage with Miss C on numerous occasions since she moved into her property to carry out the necessary repairs, but that they had not been able to get access to her property or she had not been satisfied with the work they had undertaken. We found that, while there were still outstanding repairs, they had made reasonable efforts to try to resolve these issues.

Miss C also expressed concern that the council had not made reasonable adjustments in the way they provided their housing services, despite informing them of her mental health needs. We identified a range of adjustments that the council had made to their services to meet Miss C's needs, in line with their policies. However, we considered that it would have been helpful for them to have procedures in place to assist staff with identifying and recording reasonable adjustments for their customers.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• undertake an impact assessment of the revised procedure on protected characteristics, and amend the procedure in line with the findings;
• take steps to ensure that all warning markers are reviewed annually, and provide evidence of the steps taken;
• apologise to Miss C for the confusing information that they provided in relation to staff visiting in pairs and the marker on her records;
• consider introducing a procedure for the agreement and recording of reasonable adjustments for customers with disabilities;
• agree and record reasonable adjustments to facilitate Miss C's access to their housing repairs service; and
• consider identifying potential advisers within the council to provide information and assistance on a range of disabilities, to improve staff awareness and facilitate access to services for those with disabilities.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with flooding risk to her croft and an adjacent new development. She said that a developer came onto the croft without permission, and upgraded a pipe (which drained his field into their drainage system) with a larger size pipe. The developer then applied for permission for a new development, including a surface water drain using the new pipe. Mrs C objected to the application on the basis that the drain would not be able to cope with the volume of water from the development. The council's road services agreed, and the developer amended the application. The council approved the amended application, although Mrs C still thought the system would not be effective.

After the development started, the site flooded several times. Mrs C reported this to the council, who negotiated with the developer. It was agreed that the council would carry out works to reduce the upstream catchment area, and the developer would undertake further remedial works if a flooding problem remained. The council carried out their works, and the developer undertook some works to protect the new development, including taking steps to divert overland water onto Mrs C's croft, and deepening the drainage ditch on her land (without permission). However, the croft and development site flooded again a few years later. Although the council asked the developer to carry out remedial works as agreed, they refused. The council then said that they were not able to enforce the agreement with the developer, and suggested that Mrs C pay to upgrade the drainage system if she was concerned about flooding.

After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We found that the council had dealt with the original application in line with planning requirements, and the issue of the developer working on Mrs C's land was a private matter between them. We also found that the council had acted within their powers to manage flood risk in undertaking remedial works. The adviser was concerned that the council were not clearer about their role (for example, when they negotiated an agreement with the developer, Mrs C thought she could rely on this). However, we found no evidence that the council failed to comply with policies or the relevant requirements.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council were incorrectly pursuing her for payment of council tax arrears for a period after she had vacated her rented flat. Ms C said that she had paid the council tax demand she had received from the council, and when she notified them she was moving out two months before the lease ended, she was told her account had been closed. Subsequently, she had received council tax demands for sums due before she left, and until the formal end of her lease. The council had admitted to her that they had made mistakes with her council tax account. However, Ms C told us that they had not satisfactorily explained to her why they had told her that her account would be closed when she vacated the flat, had then made further demands, and then continued to send her demands for different amounts.

We upheld Ms C's complaint because it was clear not only that she had been given incorrect advice at the outset that her account would close when she vacated the flat, but there had been a catalogue of errors following on from this in the handling of her council tax liability. The council had recognised that their service to her was poor when they responded to her formal complaints, and apologised. However, we considered that more could be done to resolve Ms C's complaint because the council had failed to provide her with demands for payment which showed that they had correctly calculated both what she had paid into her account, and what she owed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a time and trouble payment to Ms C; and
• review Ms C's council tax liability and payments record and provide fresh billing notifications, with a covering letter explaining any changes made.

Summary

Miss C complained about the final account issued by the council for statutory repair works which had been undertaken on a flat she owned in Edinburgh. The project had been the subject of independent review, and further works had been undertaken (for which she had not been charged). There had been an overall reduction in the bill. However, Miss C complained to us about the council's 15 percent administration fee, because she considered this was inappropriate on top of the amount assessed by the independent review. She also complained about the tone of the council's response to her returning the discharge form with agreement to paying her share of the works minus the administration fee.

In response to our enquiry, the council said they had a legal entitlement to recover the administrative fee, and this had been reduced in line with the reduction to the final account. They explained that the company that undertook the independent review had, in some cases, made recommendations to partially or fully waive the council's administrative fee, but had not done so in this instance. Taking this advice into account, we did not uphold the complaint. Miss C had also asked for the reimbursement of her share of the cost of expenses incurred by the owners for professional services, but as this had also been considered as part of the review and a decision taken not to pay, we considered we had no grounds to challenge this.

We did uphold Miss C's complaint about the tone of the council's letter, and noted from our enquiry to the council that they accepted that her complaint was justified and were addressing the concerns which had been raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the tone of the letter sent to her by the council.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to allow changes to a planning application for a house in the local conservation area by considering them as a non-material variation. Mr C was concerned that this meant that residents did not have the right to object to the development. In addition, he was concerned that the council had failed to take into account relevant policies when granting permission for the felling of three trees on the site.

We found that the changes to the original design actually reduced the size of the proposals and meant that the impact on the area of the new build would be less, under the new proposals, than it would have been under the original application. We considered that the planning officer's decision to consider this as a non-material variation, rather than requiring a new application, was reasonable. We also noted the council's reasons for allowing the removal of the trees and noted that they would be replaced with native varieties. As these were both discretionary decisions of the council, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council reached their decision, we did not uphold these complaints.