Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained about an unauthorised development immediately adjacent to her home. She said that in June 2013 work began in the field next to her house and it quickly became apparent that this was to develop a caravan site. A planning application was submitted for part of the site. In September 2013, the council issued a temporary stop notice with regard to the works and also obtained an interim interdict from the sheriff (a temporary court order stopping a particular course of action). Court proceedings began after the interdict was breached and a planning enforcement notice was issued. Thereafter, another planning application was made for the remainder of the site (for which no application had been made).

No appeal was made against the council's enforcement notice which, therefore, took effect in December 2013. The compliance date expired in January 2014 without any action being taken against the developer. Then, in April 2014, both planning applications were withdrawn. Court proceedings against the alleged operator were dismissed in August 2014 and, the following month, two new planning applications were made for the site which were subsequently deemed to be invalid.

Mrs C complained that although the opportunity existed for the council to take action and clear the site, they failed unreasonably to do so. As a consequence of the unauthorised works that have taken place, she said that her house and business have been detrimentally affected and her home is at risk from flooding.

The council said that they took such breaches of planning control very seriously but that the situation next to her home was not straightforward; once the notice had expired which allowed time to appeal or comply, the only action remaining to the council was to remove the caravans and associated buildings by direct action. The council said they were considering this and developing a formal strategy to address the unauthorised development which they hoped would be in place by June 2014.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and we found that there was uncertainty of timing of action regarding ongoing court action and the planning applications. There was also uncertainty over the need to obtain powers over the entire site before taking direct action which required professional judgement on the part of planning officers. Up until spring 2014, all of the measures taken by the council to remedy the breach were reasonable and part of the suite of statutory planning enforcement instruments available under planning legislation. Similarly, it was reasonable for the council to await outcomes of planning applications and court action at the same time as formulating a strategy of action. However, although the council had spoken about a plan of action, they had, in fact, made very little meaningful progress towards it and towards an effective remedy for the breach of planning control. Little was done to expedite action and there was little assessment of the available options. Throughout this time, Mrs C was left with a large and unauthorised development next to her house, so we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a full apology for the delay in pursuing a plan to deal with the unauthorised development and for the distress and inconvenience suffered; and
• ensure that relevant planning officers review the circumstances of this complaint to see where opportunities were lost to progress matters and to develop an action plan to avoid them in the future. They should inform us of the plan they agree.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A was unhappy with the way the council dealt with his concerns about asbestos in his home, about them blocking access to an electrical socket when they altered his ceiling and about the way they handled his complaint.

Our investigation considered whether the council acted in line with legislation and their own policy when dealing with the asbestos. We found that they did and that they responded reasonably to every one of Mr A's requests to have the asbestos tested. We did not uphold this complaint.

We also considered whether Mr A was treated reasonably in relation to the problem with the blocked socket. We found that by arranging for the socket to be repositioned, then adhering to Mr A's wishes for the work to stop, and then reinitiating the work again when Mr A requested it again, the council acted reasonably. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, our investigation considered whether the council implemented their complaints procedure reasonably when handling his complaint. We found that the council took three times longer than they should have to provide their final response, did not update him throughout this time, failed to agree longer timescales and there were errors in the response given. We upheld Mr A's complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a further apology for the complaints handling failings identified; and
• provide a copy of our decision to the member of staff who responded to this complaint on behalf of the council.

Summary

Mr C had complained over a number of years to the council about problems of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He was dissatisfied with the council's handling of his complaints about noise nuisance, and said that they had been hesitant to take action within the powers at their disposal. He also complained that the council had withdrawn their service from him on this, and as a result he had suffered three weeks of anti-social behaviour with no service. He also complained of delay in the handling of his complaint.

We found that the council had stopped the call-out service by officers, who had visited in response to complaints from Mr C of noise nuisance, because there had been counter-complaints about Mr C's behaviour. However, we found no evidence that the council had not continued to deal with his complaint, including making arrangements for sound monitoring equipment to be installed in his home. We found nothing wrong with the thoroughness of the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint. The council recognised there was delay in replying to Mr C, so we upheld his complaint about this, but as they had already apologised, which we considered satisfactory, we did not make a recommendation.

Summary

Ms C told us that other houses in a similar or better condition than her own were included by the council on a programme of works and were re-rendered and insulated. She complained that her home was not included in this programme of works and was not upgraded. She told us her home was non-standard construction and was very hard to heat.

The council said the purpose of the improvement programme was to make sure that their housing stock met the Scottish Housing Quality Standard (SHQS). They instructed a surveyor to carry out a visual inspection of all housing stock so they could identify properties which might fail to meet the SHQS. The surveyor found that Ms C's property was not one of those which failed to meet the standard. It was not, therefore, included in the programme of works.

When Ms C raised concerns about the outcome of the survey a member of the council's capital investment team, who were responsible for the upgrade programme, inspected Ms C's property again and reached the same conclusion, that the property needed a few repairs but did not fail the SHQS.

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.