Local 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.

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.