Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's role in relation to a housing development in which he had bought a house from a developer who was no longer trading, and with no completion certificate. Mr C complained that the council had not ensured that the access road met the approved plans or building regulations. He also questioned whether a fire engine would be able to access his house, and was unhappy that the council would not survey the road to check its width.

We reviewed the evidence and could see that the relevant building regulations had required a minimum road width of 3.7 metres. In addition, the council had acknowledged to Mr C that the approved drawings specified a width of 4.0 metres. However, the council said the road's adequacy would have been considered when they granted completion certificates to the development's other properties. They said their surveyors would not have needed to measure its width and this was a matter of professional judgment.

The council provided us with copies of Scottish Government guidance relating to the building standards system. We considered the guidance and it indicated that the council do not stand behind a developer's work, nor is it their role to ensure it is done to an owner's satisfaction. The evidence showed that the responsibility for compliance was not the council's and did not point to maladministration by them. Their role was not as extensive as Mr C might have wished it to have been and we did not uphold his complaint.

In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council told him that the building regulations in place at the time did not require them to consult with the fire authority. Although Mr C felt best practice would have been for the council to have done so anyway, they provided evidence to show they had recently arranged for the fire service to attend the development. The fire service had confirmed they were comfortable with access in the event of an emergency and that they had no concerns. In light of the assurance the council had obtained - and the fact the evidence indicated that the duty to comply with the building regulations was not theirs - we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, the council confirmed to Mr C that they had checked the size of the refuse vehicles that accessed his property, and their correspondence clearly showed that the fire service had accessed the development and had no concerns. We found no evidence of any administrative failing by the council in terms of checking the width of the road.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that a properly accessible manhole cover was installed (in line with the approved drawings) at the development where he had bought a house. He also felt they had failed to confirm that the surface water drainage satisfied the approved plans and that his house's roof construction met the correct standards. Mr C had bought his house without a completion certificate being in place and he was unhappy at the steps the council had taken with the development.

In considering Mr C's complaints, we took account of the extent of the council's role and obligations. The evidence they provided – including Scottish Government guidance on the building standards system - indicated that it was not their role to effectively supervise the development or to ensure compliance with plans or drawings. In addition, the fact that the manhole cover was missing years after the development was completed did not, by extension, mean it was never in place. Although we could not confirm from the paperwork whether the manhole cover was ever in place, the evidence showed that the council's role was clearly less than Mr C had expected.

In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the council said they were not required to test the development's surface water system. They also said that this would not be part of the final inspection following an application for a completion certificate (noting that there had been no such application for Mr C's property). Mr C had indicated that the drainage system had actually been working successfully and the evidence again pointed to the council's limited role. Although his concerns were clear, there was no evidence that the council had done anything wrong.

Finally, the council told Mr C that enclosing the eaves of his roof was neither required under building regulations nor part of a final inspection. Rather, a roof would generally be visually inspected from ground level, with an intrusive inspection possibly following if the council felt it necessary. In light of the council's limited role with the development, we considered it clear they were not responsible for the quality of the builder's workmanship.

Summary

Mr C applied for planning permission in 2007, which was granted with conditions. Mr C began works on the site a couple of years later. In July 2013 the council contacted Mr C and informed him that he had not satisfied all of the conditions of the planning permission prior to work starting, and they had not been formally discharged. They invited him to submit the information regarding the conditions for them to be discharged.

Mr C said he had been given verbal approval by the planning officer at the time, but did not recall getting anything in writing. Mr C submitted further information in August 2013. In November that year, the council wrote to Mr C to inform him that as the conditions had not been discharged within the five year period in which the permission had been granted, the application had lapsed and he would have to submit a new application and pay the associated fee for doing so. Mr C complained about this and came to us.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who was of the view that the council, by its own standards for discharging conditions, had not followed the proper procedure. Our adviser also noted that the council had not specified in all the conditions that they needed to be satisfied in writing. We accepted our adviser's view and in light of the evidence we found we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address the issues identified. We also recommended the council apologise to Mr C.

However, our adviser also noted the responsibility of the applicant to ensure they have all the proper permissions before starting works on site. In considering this, we recommended that the council reduce the new application fee by half, to reflect the shared responsibilities of both parties.

Mr C had also complained about the way the council handled his complaint. We were satisfied the appropriate person had investigated it, but it had taken six weeks for a response to be issued to Mr C. For this reason, we upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to remind staff about the timescales on complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• find a mechanism to reduce the cost of the application fee by 50 percent, in recognition of the failings identified;
• remind relevant staff of the procedures regarding the discharging of conditions;
• consider being more specific in requiring written approval, in wording conditions; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of monitoring timescales on complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about the way the council handled changes to her council tax when she started work and stopped getting employment support allowance. Ms C contacted the council to tell them about the change in her circumstances. She knew that she was no longer entitled to a council tax reduction and wanted the necessary adjustments to be made to her council tax payments, which she made by direct debit.

We found that the council did not act efficiently on the information provided and were responsible for confusion in the administration of Ms C's council tax. The team responsible for council tax reduction had not acted on an electronic notification from the Department of Work and Pensions and when Ms C contacted the council's customer contact centre she was given mixed messages about the process by which changes would be made to her account. Each time Ms C phoned the council she should have been transferred to the benefits service or invited to join the service phone queue in line with the council's agreed call-handling process. There was no evidence that this process was followed. Consequently it took more than 12 months for the council tax reduction to be removed so that the team responsible for council tax could adjust Ms C's account, by which time she had accrued significant arrears.

Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably took a payment from her bank account without prior warning. We did not uphold this complaint because there was no evidence that the council told Ms C when she made an additional payment by phone that the usual amount would not also be taken by direct debit.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the confusion caused in handling her complaint calls and in responding to her complaint about poor communication; and
• remind staff of the importance of the agreed process for transferring calls or inviting people to join the service queue.

Summary

A planning application was submitted for land next to Mr C's property. Mr C viewed the available documents and made representations to the council. He also asked for copies of information that would have made clear the proposed heights of the dwellings being proposed, but was not given this information. The planning application was approved. When work began, Mr C was concerned about the height of the ground being prepared for the dwelling to be built closest to his home. He complained to the council that the height of the proposed dwelling had not been clear from the information available to the public during the consultation period. In response the council advised that clear indications of the heights of the proposed dwelling had been available when the decision to grant permission had been taken. Mr C brought his complaint to us.

We took independent planning advice, and found that the documents that the council said made clear the heights of the proposed dwelling were not available to the public during the consultation period, and that this was not in line with the terms of relevant national policy. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide written apologies to all those to whom they gave notice of the application under the neighbour notification provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 for their failure to reasonably ensure that the heights of the dwellings proposed in the application were clear to the public during the consultation period; and
• review their planning procedures to ensure that the information available to the general public during the consultation period for planning applications indicates clearly when substantial changes to the height of land are proposed.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about their refusal to install a gas fire in her home when the existing one broke down and was replaced with an electric fire. Mrs C said that she offered to pay for a new gas fire but the council refused and advised her to use her gas central heating system. She was concerned that the electric fire would affect her asthma but was told that it was council policy to only install electric fires. Mrs C was unhappy that the gas central heating took longer to heat up, was unreliable, and more expensive to run when she needed to get up during the night because of suffering from other disabilities. She felt that the council may be in breach of their own disability policy by not allowing her to have a gas fire.

We found that the council had checked the gas central heating was properly working and they had arranged for advice to be given on how to heat her home efficiently but this was refused by her. We did not find evidence to show that the council had failed to follow their written procedures in terms of their gas safety policy or that their policy failed to meet Mrs C’s health and disability needs when refusing her a gas fire. They also made a prompt referral to social services to assess Mrs C’s health needs, although this was not carried out. The council said that this was because Mrs C refused the assessment but Mrs C said she was told it was unlikely social services could do anything about getting her a gas fire. We found no evidence that Mrs C was given this advice.

We were satisfied that the council had not dismissed her health concerns and noted that they remained willing to explore Mrs C's health needs and the options available. We found, therefore, that the council's actions were reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application to build a commercial retail development on a site close to her property. She complained that the council had not sent her any neighbour notification of this, and so she was unable to object to the application. She also complained that when assessing the application the council failed to give proper consideration to the close proximity of the building to her property and that the surrounding fence added extra height, cutting off light into her garden. Finally, Mrs C was aggrieved that her address had been identified as the planning site and complained that the council had allowed the developer to attach a fence to the boundary wall, which she believed belonged to her.

During our investigation we took advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the council accepted that, by mistake, Mrs C had not been neighbour notified. However, they had investigated how the error occurred, apologised to Mrs C and taken action to ensure that her property would be notified in future, so we did not need to make a recommendation. We were also satisfied that, while the development was close to Mrs C's property there were no significant daylight/sunlight issues, and the fence that was erected independently of the boundary wall would not have a significant impact on residential properties in terms of daylight/sunlight. We found no evidence that the council gave permission for the fence to be attached to the boundary wall and when the unauthorised fence was brought to their attention, they took action to ensure that it complied with the approved plans.

Summary

Miss C was served with a bus lane enforcement charge notice for an incident that occurred within days of her selling her vehicle. The notice said that if she considered she should not have received it, she could make representations, and if the council rejected these, she could appeal to the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. At first, Miss C did not have details of the new owner, but after she got information from the DVLA (for which she had to pay), the council withdrew the notice. They turned down her request for the costs, and said they reserved the right to send her a further notice if the new keeper denied responsibility. Miss C complained that the council failed to deal with the issues and her queries satisfactorily, and unnecessarily put her to the expense of pursuing the matter.

We upheld all Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council’s decision not to pay her DVLA expenses was based on a misinterpretation of the regulations. The notice omitted part of the regulation saying that it was only ‘if’ that information was in the recipient’s possession that they must provide it. We found that the council had misunderstood their obligations and had no right to demand this information from Miss C. We also found that the council continued to correspond with Miss C after the DVLA confirmed that she was no longer the registered keeper. The council had accepted this but failed to explain to us why they then continued to deal with Miss C, even after the new keeper had accepted liability for the contravention. They also failed to investigate Miss C’s complaint that email was acknowledged but not replied to.

Although the council told us that they carried out all procedures in terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, they failed to make clear to Miss C which section of the regulations gave them the authority to ‘withdraw’ the notice rather than cancel it. There was nothing wrong with the council testing out the information about the new keeper. However, they should not have issued Miss C with a notice of acceptance until they had done so. By doing so, they denied Miss C a right to appeal, and she was only able to obtain confirmation that the notice would not be re-issued by pursing a formal complaint to the final stage of the council’s complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of Miss C's expenses claim, in the light of the omission of an integral part of the Regulation from the Penalty Notice;
• review the handling of this case to ensure an improvement in future dealings with their customers;
• apologise to Miss C for their failure to address her complaint promptly and clearly;
• investigate why Miss C's email was not recorded and processed, and notify us of their findings;
• apologise to Miss C for the failure to investigate this matter; and
• review their procedures for imposing charges for bus lane contraventions and the standard letters issued to the public.

Summary

Mrs C applied for a crisis grant for a door entry system. The next day the council told her that her application had been declined, and Mrs C asked immediately for the decision to be reviewed. She told us that she did not hear from the council for over two weeks so she asked them what had happened to the review. The council told her that the review took place on the day she asked for it, and it was declined again. Mrs C did not believe that the council could make a decision and then review it within 24 hours. She also said that they did not explain to her why a door entry system could not be funded by a crisis grant.

The council confirmed that the review was indeed dealt with within one working day, as they were up to date with these at that time. This was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found, however, that Scottish Government guidance says that the council should have explained why they refused the application. They admitted to us that they did not do this in Mrs C's case so we upheld that complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for failing to explain why a crisis grant cannot be given for a door entry system when they communicated their decision; and
• explain to Mrs C why a crisis grant cannot be given for a door entry system.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his tenant's application for Local Housing Allowance (LHA). When his tenant failed to pay the rent, Mr C phoned the council. He was told that there were delays in processing the application, but that when it was done, he would receive a payment directly. The council finished processing the application some four months after it was submitted. However, a computer system fault meant that the first payment went directly to the tenant's bank account, instead of Mr C's. Mr C did not know this, and when he had still not received payment several weeks later, he made a further enquiry. It then became apparent what had happened, but by this time a further rent payment had gone to the tenant.

We found that the council gave Mr C inaccurate information about applying for direct payments. They 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, and 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 respond within their stated timescales, and 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, in their decision-making and their use of evidence - they relied too heavily on unreliable evidence from the tenant. We also found that they did not provide Mr C with consistent information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• pay Mr C the cost of the first payment which was sent in error to the tenant;
• ensure that all staff involved in processing LHA applications are fully aware of the timescales in the council's complaints handling procedure; and
• apologise to Mr C for the errors in handling his tenant's LHA application, and for the time and effort involved in this complaint.