Local Government

Summary

Ms C shared a private driveway with two rented properties. When she experienced problems with access because of the way the tenants parked their cars, she found that there was no landlord registration. She wrote to the council about her concerns. She said the council were not doing enough to address the issues she had raised. She then experienced further problems when a blocked drain at the rented property caused an overflow of sewage onto her driveway and she contacted the council about this matter too. After lengthy and detailed correspondence with the council about her dissatisfaction, the council referred her to our office.

Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Ms C and the council, the council's records of contact with her, and the actions they took, as well as the relevant legislation. We found that the council had reasonably responded and addressed the matters she raised. However, we also noted that it was not always clear how the council were dealing with her complaints in terms of their complaints handling procedure, and we recommended that the council address this aspect.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure complaints are accurately identified from the outset and complaints handling procedures are clearly communicated.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's decision not to allow her child to delay starting primary school. Mrs C was concerned that her original application for this had not been considered and that the council were unaware of this error until she raised it with them. Mrs C did not consider that the council had provided her with accurate information about delaying entry to primary one, or that they had shown that a proper assessment of her child's needs had been carried out. Mrs C also complained that the council had not followed their complaints handling procedure.

Following our investigation, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council had not dealt with her application properly and noted that they had already provided her with an apology for this. We found that there was no system in place to confirm that all applications submitted via schools had been logged at the council's central pupil placement department. We upheld Mrs C's complaint about the information she was provided with as we found that this was confusing and lacked clarity. The complaint about the handling of her concerns was also upheld. We found that the council had already acknowledged this failing and apologised to Mrs C.

After considering her concerns about the assessment of her child's needs, we found that there was evidence that this had taken place and, although this could have been better communicated to Mrs C by the council, we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the introduction of a system to confirm with schools that all submitted applications have been logged by the pupil placement department;
• confirm that the difference between deferment and a retained year will be clearly explained in the next revision of their guidance;
• consider the benefits of separating the deferment and retained year application process to avoid confusion in future;
• ensure that accurate information about routes for resolution is provided at an early stage;
• ensure that the reasoning and final decisions reached on such applications are formally recorded; and
• raise awareness amongst staff in the education department of the definition of a complaint and when their complaints handling procedure should be used.

Summary

Ms C and her family lived in a property that needed some work done that could not be carried out with tenants in the property. She was offered a temporary property to live in whilst the work was being carried out, but Ms C said she had asked if she could be considered for a permanent house move. She said that the council had initially agreed to this. When Ms C's request for a permanent housing transfer was turned down, she complained to us.

The council's tenancy policy states that a tenant may be relocated temporarily to allow the council to carry out work, but tenants will then return to their permanent tenancy following completion of work. The policy also sets out the (separate) system whereby points are allocated to determine eligibility for council housing. We found that the council had sought other options such as bed and breakfast accommodation for the duration of the works, which was beyond what they were required to do. We also found that Ms C and her partner were not eligible for a permanent housing transfer. Although we recognised that this was a stressful experience involving upheaval for Ms C and her family, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A). When Mr A moved out of his property, the council had sent him a bill for rechargeable repairs. Mrs C appealed the bill. The council told her that the charges were accurate and that she had completed their complaints procedure.

When Mrs C brought her complaint to us, we asked the council for a copy of their final complaint response. The council told us that the complaint had not been logged or responded to in line with the complaints procedure. In the circumstances, we referred Mrs C back to the council for them to provide a full and final position, and closed the complaint.

Mrs C then returned to our office. We found that the council had still not responded to her complaint and so we upheld her complaint that it had not been reasonably handled. We made recommendations to address this.

However, regarding the charge for repairs, we found that Mr A had told the council he wanted the repairs completed and agreed to them being recharged to him. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reflect on why Mrs C's complaint was not responded to appropriately and how to prevent this in future;
• remind the staff involved in this case of the complaints procedure; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, following a flood caused by a burst pipe in an upstairs owner-occupied property, the council delayed in moving her and her family to suitable alternative emergency accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. She was also unhappy that a member of staff had ended a phone call, accusing her and her husband of using inappropriate language. She was also dissatisfied when the council told her that her refusal to lift the laminate flooring in her home had caused the drying process to take substantially longer and resulted in additional damage.

We considered the points she had raised, and found that the council had offered suitable wheelchair-accessible temporary bed and breakfast accommodation on the day of the flood. We noted that the council did not consider that moving house was necessary but had continued to offer temporary bed and breakfast accommodation which Mrs C and her husband refused as being unsuitable, in part because the family pet could not be accommodated. We also noted that Mrs C had initially refused (partly on the basis of advice from their insurers) to agree to the laminate flooring being lifted, and that the council's surveyors were of the view that the delay in lifting the laminate flooring had caused water to filter into the walls and cause additional damage. The council's policy on laminate flooring places responsibility for the lifting and replacement of laminate flooring with the tenant. Finally, although we were unable to determine exactly what was said in the phone call when Mrs C and her husband were accused of using inappropriate language, we did review the council's unacceptable actions policy which gives staff the authority to end calls where they consider the language being used is not appropriate.

As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council had failed to adequately consider Mr A's request for a disabled person's parking bay. We found that the council had adequately considered Mr A's application and had considered both his own and his wife's medical circumstances. The decision to refuse the application because a disabled person's parking bay had already been installed at the rear of Mr A's property was a decision that the council were entitled to take. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

That said, Mr C also complained about how Mr A had been notified of the decision on his application. The council's process for applications for a disabled person's parking bay clearly states that the council should advise the applicant in writing that either the request has been forwarded to the roads service for consideration or that the applicant does not meet the criteria. The council had referred Mr A's application to their roads service for consideration, but they had failed to notify Mr A of this in writing in line with their process. The council had then phoned Mr A to tell him that they had refused his application, but there was subsequently some confusion for both Mr A and the council about whether a decision had in fact been made. In view of this, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that applicants for a disabled person's bay are notified in writing that either the request has been forwarded to the roads service for consideration or that they do not meet the criteria;
• consider whether the procedure should be amended to state that applicants should be notified of the final decision in writing; and
• issue a written apology to Mr A.

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.