Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to assess a planning application for a house on neighbouring land correctly and consistently with previous decisions taken, and that they delayed in making relevant drawings available on their online planning portal. We also investigated Mr C's complaint that he was not given an adequate opportunity to provide further information in support of his complaint under the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that there were some areas where Mr C's complaint about the assessment of the planning application were justified, particularly in relation to the accuracy of the planning officer's report to committee. However, there was no evidence of fault in the way the planning application was handled, and this was consistent with previous decisions about the site. We also concluded that the council's explanation about timescales for uploading information to their portal was reasonable, and we did not support Mr C's complaint of delay.

When we investigated how the council had handled Mr C's complaint, we found that they had complied with their procedure. They had made it clear to him that there was an approaching deadline, and we considered it would have been reasonable for Mr C to contact the council to seek more time to provide information, if necessary.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A that a warning letter she received from the council in October about her alleged behaviour was the first such notification she received. Ms A said that although she requested a meeting to discuss the situation, she was not given the opportunity to provide her side of the story. Ms C said that Ms A was being victimised and ignored.

We found that there was evidence that Ms A had been warned on occasions before October, and she had referred to this correspondence in her own letters. Ms A had also been given details of the complaints made against her, and been invited to call or meet to discuss them. She did not do so. We found no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to act in accordance with their anti-social behaviour policy, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, told us the council were unreasonably imposing a weekly charge for a shower. There was a shower in the flat when she moved in. Ms C said that when she signed the tenancy she assumed that the weekly shower charge was just a normal rent charge. When she asked the council about it she was told the shower could not be removed and replaced with a bath. Ms C felt she had paid unnecessarily for a basic shower which she could have had installed herself for a much lower cost.

We found the council's shower installation programme was designed to offer choice to tenants, at no cost to the council. Councils have a limited budget to spend and must decide how to use their resources carefully. It was the council's policy to impose a weekly charge for the shower installed in Ms C's home. The council provided details of the calculations, which covered a 30-year period, on which the shower charge was based.

We found that Ms C exercised choice in taking the tenancy on and that the council made her aware that there was a weekly charge for the shower which was additional to the rent. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way that the council dealt with various planning applications concerned with drilling and the exploration and development of coal bed methane from early 2007 until 2009, when an application was submitted for the formation of a gas compressor station. These applications were all approved subject to conditions. Then, from 2011 until 2013, further applications were made to vary the timescales of the permissions that had been granted earlier.

Mrs C complained that the council should not have considered the applications on an individual basis and that this should have been considered to be a major development. She also believed that planning officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the matters nor did they ensure appropriate public consultation. In reply, the council said that due process had been followed throughout.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation found that the council had considered the applications in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. Similarly, they followed legislation when varying the timescales applying. There was no evidence to suggest that the developments constituted a major development or that officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the applications. All the planning applications had been publicly advertised and requirements for neighbour notification fulfilled.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay.

We found that Ms C did not receive a meaningful response from the council until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the unreasonable delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with a response to her complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay.

We found that Ms C did not receive a meaningful response from the council until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the unreasonable delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with a response to her complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay.

We found that Ms C's complaint was acknowledged the day it was received by the council, but she did not receive a meaningful response until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the unreasonable delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with a response to her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A about the development of a property near to Mr A's house. During the building works, the council was alerted to the possibility that the property was not being built in accordance with the planning permission. It was later established that the property was not built in accordance with the planning permission, and the council issued a section 33A notice (a form of enforcement action which requires a new planning application to be submitted for consideration).

Mr C complained that the council had not taken action during construction when they were first made aware of the breach. Mr C also complained that the council had then not taken reasonable enforcement action once the breach was established.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. They concluded that it was reasonable of the council not to take any action during construction until they had established whether or not a breach had occurred. The adviser was also satisfied that the council had the discretion to choose whether to take enforcement action (which they did) and what form that it should take. Although the council did not intend to take any further enforcement action, this was a discretionary decision for the council to make. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

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.