Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that she had been forced into a meeting at the end of the school day to discuss her daughter's homework, when she was anxious about collecting another of her children from a different school. She alleged that staff were intimidating and behaved unprofessionally. She also complained about how the school communicated with her. She was dissatisfied with the response she received and complained that her complaints had not been adequately and seriously addressed. Our investigation considered the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and the school, and the council's complaints handling procedure and records of investigation. We found that the council had inappropriately handled her complaint as a first stage in their procedure when more detailed investigation was required of the serious complaints made. There was no evidence that staff had behaved in the way Mrs C alleged and a second investigation addressed the points she had made more comprehensively. The council's final response identified some short-comings in communication and the timings of approach to Mrs C at the end of the school day and we upheld her complaint about how the council had dealt with her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not carrying out a full investigation when the complaint was initially made;
• remind staff of the importance of assessing complaints in terms of the appropriate stage at which they should be handled; and
• consider whether further staff training is required on the principles of good practice in complaints handling.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation about the overpayment to her of housing benefit, and unreasonably delayed in processing the change relating to the end of her childcare costs.

Following our investigation of Miss C's complaint, we found that she was entitled to a statutory right of appeal if she considered that the decision notices she received were incorrect, so we were unable to address whether the council's re-calculation of her benefit claims had been properly undertaken. However, we looked at her complaint to us about administrative fault and found that the council had responded appropriately to her concerns about how the overpayment arose, but upheld her complaint because the council's decision notices had not provided a reasonable explanation about the overpayment. The council had recognised she was not provided with a lot of detail, and told her that revision of the decision notice was under review. We were satisfied that the improvement planned would provide a satisfactory outcome to her complaint. However, we made recommendations for improvements in the process (inclusion in the final letter in the complaints procedure to the claimant's statutory right of appeal to a tribunal, and additional information in the planned revised decision notice to 'time' in the right to apply for a revision of the decision by the council or appeal).

We also upheld Miss C's complaint that there had been a period of delay in processing the change relating to the end of her child care costs. However, as the council had already recognised this and apologised to her, we considered that appropriate action had been taken to resolve Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider including a reminder within the final letter signposting a complainant to us about their right as a claimant to a statutory right of appeal if they think the council's decision on their benefit claim is wrong;
• share the outcome of this complaint with the relevant staff; and
• include a reference to time in the right to apply for a revision of the decision or appeal against it, in the information which will be made available in the council's revised notice.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that errors made in their planning procedures resulted in her loss of privacy when a boundary fence was not erected on the new development site next to her home as stated in the original plans and conditions. The council acknowledged the errors and waived the planning application fee so that Mrs C could raise the height of her own boundary wall. When she complained that she would be faced with the considerable cost of heightening her boundary to secure her privacy, the council had said they had done all they could and could not go back on a signed-off document. When we notified the council of our investigation, the council then referred Mrs C's case to their insurers and asked her to make a claim. With this attempt to consider financial redress, we closed our investigation.

Summary

When Mr C moved out of his property, into a larger council property, he was sent a bill for rechargeable repairs that needed to be carried out. Mr C complained that there had not been a pre-termination inspection which would have alerted him to any changes he had made to the property which the council were not satisfied with. Mr C also said he had offered to carry out the repairs himself, as he could not afford the estimated cost the council provided him with. When Mr C did receive the full invoice for the works, they were more than double the estimate previously provided and Mr C also complained about this.

During our investigation we found the reason no pre-termination inspection was carried out was because the council themselves had set a very tight deadline for Mr C to move into the new property, so that he would avoid paying two rents. We also found the council had not responded to Mr C's later offer to correct the work himself. For these reasons we upheld this complaint and recommended the council apologise to Mr C.

We also found the council were unable to specify exactly why Mr C's final bill was so much higher than originally estimated. While they provided general comments that it was difficult to predict exactly how each job would progress, we were not satisfied they could robustly explain what happened in Mr C's case. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address this.

During the investigation we also identified a number of administrative failings, including unreasonable delays, confusion over the appeals route and complaints procedure and made recommendations to address these aspects as well. In light of the failings, we also recommended the council cancel Mr C's invoice.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• cancel the outstanding invoice;
• reflect on the failings identified and how to prevent them occurring again;
• review the rechargeable repairs appeals procedure and ensure that it refers to us at the end of the process; and
• provide us with a copy of the standardised tool for estimating repair costs.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take steps to make her child feel safe at school following a meeting that had been arranged at the school to offer support to them both. Mrs C said that she had raised concerns at this meeting and an earlier meeting with a teacher that her child was being bullied. She said that she had asked that her child was monitored at break and lunchtime, but the council failed to put this in place.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mrs C had raised concerns about bullying at either of the meetings or that she had asked for her child to be monitored. Staff who attended the meetings said that they did not recall this being discussed and it was not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes referred to two action points that were to be taken forward, but these were not in relation to bullying. We found that the council had taken action to implement these two points after the meeting.

Summary

Mr C complained about development at a caravan park near his home. He complained that two lodges at the site did not meet the criteria to be treated as caravans and felt that these should have required planning permission. Mr C said that the council had failed to allow the planning system to run its course and had been negligent in not requiring a planning application for the earthworks for the lodges (they were located on a steep hillside). Mr C complained that the local plan for the area had not been taken into account and that the council had unreasonably included provision for 14 new stances at the site when granting a new site licence for the caravan park.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had determined that the lodges did not meet the definition of a caravan but that the decision on whether to take action was a discretionary matter. The council took the view that no planning purpose would be served by taking enforcement action and we received advice that this was a reasonable decision taken following due consideration. Similarly, we found that the council's decision to accept the earthworks at the site as permitted development to be reasonable. We received advice that as this was a decision that the council was entitled to make which they duly considered, it could only be challenged by judicial review. We found that there was nothing to suggest that the local plan had not been taken into consideration. Finally, we were advised that the inclusion of 14 new stances in the site licence fell within the planning scope established by a certificate of lawful use or development issued by the Scottish Government.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had acted unreasonably by refusing grant funding and registration for a tenants and residents association. After discussing this with him, we found it appeared that the council had not fully explained how they had reached their decision. We, therefore, decided that in the first instance it would be appropriate for Mr C and the council to meet in an effort to resolve some of his complaints. The council and Mr C agreed to meet and we closed his complaint to allow this to happen.

Mr C subsequently complained, however, that he was unhappy with the council's explanation. We investigated and upheld two of his complaints, as we found that there was unreasonable delay in processing the tenants and residents association's application for a grant, and there were failures in communication. We did not find it necessary to make recommendations, as the council had already apologised to Mr C and taken action to try to avoid this happening again. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint of discrimination in the decision not to award a grant.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about the council's involvement in a investigation by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) into possible benefit fraud. Mr A was unhappy that the council had been involved in the investigation and had attended interviews with an officer from the DWP when he was not in receipt of council tax or housing benefit. He was also unhappy about how council staff had spoken to him when he attended for an interview at council offices, and with the accuracy of two sets of notes from one of the interviews and about the handling of his complaint.

During our investigation the council confirmed that their officer should not have been involved in the interviews as Mr A was not in receipt of council tax or housing benefit, and that they had apologised to Mr A for their handling of this. They had also explained to him what they had done to try to ensure a similar situation did not occur in the future. As it was clear that the officer should not have attended the interviews with Mr A we upheld this complaint. The council had also apologised for the service Mr A received when he attended their offices, and again explained the action taken as a result of his complaint. Given the poor level of service Mr A had received we also upheld this complaint. Because the council had already taken action on the issues, however, we did not make any recommendations.

We did not uphold Mr A's other complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had addressed his concern about the accuracy of the minutes and had explained why two sets of notes for the same meeting had some differences. We also found that they had considered Mr A's representations and provided reasonable responses to the issues he had raised.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council issued a notice saying that work needed to be carried out urgently to preserve a listed building that he had agreed to buy. The council then arranged for the work to be carried out and charged the owners for the costs. When Mr C later bought the property, the sale included a clause that meant that any costs that the council pursued against the previous owners could be recovered from him. Mr C considered that the council should have allowed the sale to proceed and should have then given him time to arrange for the work to be carried out.

We found that it was reasonable for the council to issue the notice and to arrange for the work to be carried out when they did. The sale of the listed building had not been completed, and its condition was deteriorating. Without urgent council intervention, there would have been nothing to prevent further deterioration and damage. He was also unhappy as he believed that the council had not issued the notice correctly, but we did not find evidence that anything was wrong in this.

Mr C also complained about the advice the council gave him about his planning application in relation to the building. He said that he followed their advice and submitted the application, but this was refused. We found, however, that the application he had submitted was for more extensive development than he had previously discussed with the council. There was no evidence that the council had provided him with incorrect advice.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not given him and the previous owners adequate advice about obtaining grants to restore the property. We found, however, that the council had provided adequate, timely and appropriate advice about grants both to him and to the previous owners.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council delayed in carrying out repairs and upgrade works to her home. We found that the council acknowledged there had been delays, and so we upheld Miss C's complaint. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to remedy the situation, and so we did not make any recommendations in this case.