Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's handling of a planning application, for which they had granted permission. She complained that the council had misled the development management sub-committee by the wording of the report of handling. She also said they had gone against the local plan and had not considered all the material planning issues.

The council admitted that some of the wording in the report of handling could have been clearer and more accurate. However, they said they did not believe that this led the sub-committee to make a decision that they would not have made with the more accurate wording. The council said they had considered all the material issues and did not believe the planning permission granted breached the local plan.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who agreed that some of the wording could be improved. For this reason we upheld this complaint and made a recommendation. The adviser did say however, that they did not believe this led the sub-committee to make a decision contrary to the one they would have made if the report was more accurate.

The adviser was satisfied that the council had not breached the local plan and had the relevant powers to make the discretionary decisions involved in this case. The adviser also found that the council had considered all the material issues that they would be expected to consider. We accepted this advice and did not uphold these complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• conduct further training on report writing.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of complaints about the council’s handling of a neighbouring planning application. She was unhappy with the positioning of the driveway, the material used for the boundary wall and the fact that the council had not taken enforcement action over certain matters.

Our role was to consider the council’s administrative handling of the matter. We could not question their discretionary decision-making unless something had gone wrong in their decision making process (such as a failure to act in line with a relevant policy or procedure). As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who confirmed that the council had acted within their discretionary powers with the driveway and the boundary wall, and that the evidence did not point to the council needing to take enforcement action over the issues Mrs C raised. We did not uphold these complaints.

Mrs C had also complained that the council took too long to have a neighbour’s security camera removed (she was concerned that it affected her privacy). The council felt they had acted in line with their enforcement charter and had taken the appropriate steps. Although the camera had since been removed, our adviser felt the council could have done more sooner. We recognised the importance of Mrs C’s privacy and noted that the enforcement charter, while explaining that the council would normally try to negotiate a solution, said that they would treat matters affecting privacy as priorities. Although we accepted that the council’s standard practice was to negotiate and that a solution appeared to have been found, we considered that the time taken – which appeared to have been several months – was unreasonable in the circumstances. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the length of time it took for one particular camera to be removed;
• remind staff of the importance of privacy concerns – in line with their enforcement charter - when considering possible planning breaches;
• confirm that they will now take steps to determine the CCTV application and the timeframe for this; and
• take steps to investigate whether the neighbouring property has been brought into use in line with the relevant planning condition and following this, confirm with Mrs C and us their position on the issue of the screening.

Summary

Miss C and Mr B share custody of their child. Mr B lives in the town where their child's school is based and Miss C lives in a town a number of miles away. Miss C complained that the council were failing to provide her child with transport to and from school, from her address.

During our investigation we found the council were under no legal obligation to provide transport to school from multiple addresses. While Miss C and Mr B share custody of their child, one main residence has to be listed in order to determine which school the child is placed in. As this is not Miss C's residence the council are not required to provide transport from it. Therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was refused the right to buy his council house. He moved there from another council property in 2004, which meant that his right to buy entitlement changed from ‘preserved’ to ‘modernised’. Mr C tried to buy his house in 2007. However, this was days after his area was classed as pressured, which meant that the modernised right to buy was in fact suspended. Despite this, the council initially – wrongly - accepted his application but Mr C withdrew because he could not afford to proceed. However, he now again wished to buy his house. The council acknowledged that they had wrongly accepted his application in 2007 but said their lawyers would have identified that the house could not be sold, had Mr C proceeded to the next stage. In addition, as the whole of Perth and Kinross became a pressured area in 2012 Mr C still could not buy his house.

Our investigation found that in June 2006 the council told tenants (including those in Mr C’s postcode) that they planned to apply for pressured area status there with effect from 2 February 2007 and explained what this meant for modernised right to buy tenants. This also happened in 2012. Although Mr C said he had documents saying that he could buy his house after five years, he could not provide copies and the evidence indicated that his 2007 application was made after the suspension was in place. Although he withdrew that application, the evidence did not show that the council told him then that the sale could not have gone ahead anyway. We felt they reasonably could have been expected to do this. However, it was a fact that the suspension was in place when he applied to buy his house in 2007 and was later extended. While we recognised how significant this was for Mr C, our role was to consider whether the council had done anything wrong. Taking everything into account, we did not consider he was unreasonably denied his right to buy and we did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had not maintained the property in line with their standards. He raised particular concerns about his doors and windows as he did not feel he was treated the same way as other tenants. The council told Mr C they had to ensure his property was wind and watertight and maintained to an acceptable standard. His windows and doors were fitted in 1988 and, under the standard life-cycle for these, were due for renewal in 2018. They also said Mr C's property was included in the council’s recent upgrade programmes and they planned to review his windows, doors and central heating as part of the upcoming repair programme. Although Mr C was entitled to want them replaced sooner, the evidence did not point to maladministration and we did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C had a third complaint, about the water supply to his home. The evidence indicated this was an unusual situation, where the council were Mr C’s landlord but his water was supplied privately. This meant the council had one role as the local authority and another as Mr C’s landlord. The paperwork showed they tested his water supply in line with their role as local authority and notified him where samples failed. As landlord, they installed water filters and, following Mr C’s complaint, they visited his property and arranged a water assessment and service call for the filters to be changed. The council said they arranged an annual test and provided a copy of a request for a full water treatment risk assessment. The evidence showed that Mr C had long running concerns about his water (he was in contact for an extended period) and the evidence showed that the council took steps to address this. However, it was unclear whether they had confirmed to him the extent of their obligations as landlord or whether these were met. Although we noted the unusual nature of the situation, we decided that the evidence indicated that the council’s handling of the matter fell below a reasonable standard. We upheld this complaint and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence to us that they have taken appropriate steps to provide Mr C, as their tenant, with a wholesome water supply.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application for the development of a bar and restaurant near her home. She complained that the development did not adhere to the original plans and that this adversely impacted upon her privacy, the environment around her home and caused parking problems. She also complained that the council then approved a fresh planning application that permitted the development as constructed.

During our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the council accepted that the development did not reflect the original planning application and conditions. However, that was not in itself evidence of fault on the part of the council. We were satisfied that the council, in line with government guidance and their own enforcement charter, took reasonable action to require the developer to submit a fresh amended planning application, which we were satisfied dealt with the breaches in planning control which the council had identified. There was no evidence of fault in the council's handling of these matters.

Summary

Mr C complained that Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority failed to handle his planning application appropriately. He felt they had inappropriately contacted other organisations about his application and that they also failed to handle his complaint appropriately.

Mr C felt the park authority’s position with his planning application differed to their position with others. We took independent planning advice from our planning adviser and reviewed the evidence which, taken together, we did not consider indicated that the application had been handled inappropriately, and so did not uphold this complaint. Although we noted Mr C’s concerns about the park authority's contact with other organisations, our adviser said the park authority’s regular contact with other agencies reflected common practice (particularly between planning and roads authorities). We did not consider the evidence pointed to an administrative failing and, therefore, we did not uphold his second complaint.

Mr C had originally complained to the park authority by email, which they said they appeared not to have received. The park authority also said they appeared not have received Mr C’s subsequent email (he re-sent his original complaint). Mr C said he received no notification that his emails were not sent properly, but the park authority said they would not receive notification that somebody had tried to email them unsuccessfully. Instead, they said Mr C’s phone call (around four months after his original email) alerted them to his complaint. The evidence did not confirm whether the original emails had been sent successfully and we considered, once the park authority were aware of the matter, their handling of the complaint was reasonable. Mr C had been in touch with other park authority staff members throughout this time about separate matters and we considered he could have raised his concerns with the park authority sooner, if he felt there was a delay in them responding to his complaint. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a close family friend she took along to an independently chaired complaint meeting was not allowed to speak on Mrs C's behalf or ask questions. We found that Mrs C had been asked in advance whether she was bringing a representative and that she told the council she would only be bringing somebody to support her but not represent her. Therefore, we found that the council had acted reasonably.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about noise and air pollution from a nearby industrial site. The council looked into the matter but did not consider the problems to constitute a statutory nuisance. However, Mrs C did not feel that the council had taken sufficient steps to investigate her concerns and she was unhappy that they failed to take action against the site owners.

It was not our role to assess whether a nuisance existed as that was a matter for the council. The focus of our investigation was to establish whether the council acted in line with the appropriate procedures when investigating Mrs C’s complaints.

The available evidence demonstrated that the council made a significant number of visits to the area, and carried out tests, to determine whether or not a statutory nuisance existed. They also contacted relevant specialists for advice on measuring the air pollution concerns. They responded to each of the complaints of nuisance raised by Mrs C within an appropriate timeframe. While they could have done more to keep Mrs C up to date on the progress of their investigations, they had already acknowledged this and apologised to Mrs C. In the absence of any evidence of administrative failure in the way the council investigated the complaints of nuisance, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council’s handling of his tenant’s application for Local Housing Allowance (LHA). There were significant delays in the processing of the application, and Mr C completed a form to ensure that the first payment was made directly to him. However, a computer system fault meant that the first payment went directly to the tenant’s bank account, instead of to Mr C. When Mr C asked the council about what was happening, the system fault was identified. It also appeared that the council had inappropriately made a second payment to the tenant.

While the council were responding to Mr C’s complaint, they provided varying explanations about the second payment, but eventually provided payment of this smaller sum to Mr C. However, they said that they were unable to pay Mr C the first payment, as this payment had already been made to the tenant, and it was Mr C's responsibility to seek payment from his tenant.

We found that the council delayed in processing the application, and there were then faults with the payment system. We found that it would have been reasonable for the council to make the first payment directly to Mr C, but they should have confirmed with the tenant that he had not already paid any rent for this period.

We were also critical of the council's handling of Mr C’s complaint. They did not identify the complaint appropriately, or respond within their stated timescales. They also did not tell Mr C why the investigation was taking longer or when he could expect a response. We also identified failures with the way the council responded to the complaint, giving Mr C inconsistent information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• pay the cost of the first payment which was sent in error to the tenant;
• apologise to Mr C for the errors in handling the tenant’s LHA application, and for the time and effort involved in this complaint; and
• review the need for the staff involved in processing LHA applications to receive training in complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C's home was being repossessed and he applied to the council for housing. The council initially concluded that Mr C was not homeless or threatened with homelessness and decided it was reasonable for him to continue living in his home. Mr C complained about the way his housing assessment was handled and the council acknowledged that the service he received could have been better. The council took steps to address the issues prior to Mr C bringing his complaint to us and we were satisfied there was no evidence to suggest that Mr C's housing application has been affected. In addition, Mr C was made an offer of housing, which he accepted, shortly after referring his complaint to us. We concluded that the council’s handling of Mr C’s application for housing was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

We also looked at the council’s handling of Mr C’s complaint. We were satisfied that his complaints were investigated appropriately by the council and they provided clear responses. The council acknowledged there were issues and took appropriate steps to address them. For example, when Mr C’s housing application was closed down, the council acknowledged that more information should have been gathered and because of that, they agreed to review the decision. However, the council did not inform Mr C of his right to refer his complaint to us and they should have done that. Nonetheless, the information available confirmed that Mr C brought his complaint to us in the same month he received the council's final response. Therefore, even though he was not referred to us by the council, the failure to do so did not adversely affect his right to come to our office. We were satisfied that, on balance, the council’s overall handling of Mr C’s complaint was reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him of his right to refer his complaint to us.