Local Government

Summary

Due to health problems, Mr C finds it difficult to climb the stairs in his house. He applied to the council for adaptations to his home, but they declined this. His case was considered at a social work complaints review sub-committee (CRC) but, again, no adaptations were agreed. Mr C complained that the CRC was not carried out in line with the relevant procedure. Specifically, he complained that although he was only allowed to bring one representative to the CRC, the social work department had three representatives. He felt that this was unfair and complained that he was also denied the opportunity to ask questions of the staff involved in his request for adaptations.

We found that the CRC was conducted in line with the relevant guidance. That said, we felt that the council could have provided Mr C with details of the number of attendees in advance of the hearing to avoid surprises. We were also satisfied that Mr C was allowed to ask questions at the hearing. However, we were critical that there was a lack of records showing what questions were asked, who responded and what the response was.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that complainants are informed in advance about the number of staff who are normally present at CRCs; and
• share our comments about record-keeping with staff responsible for taking minutes of CRCs.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's decision to demolish a tenement building containing her three flats. She complained about the council's communication with her, and about the way they addressed the problems with the building.

After reviewing correspondence between Ms C and the council, we did not uphold either of her complaints. We found no evidence that the council's communication was inappropriate. We also found that the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 permits the council to carry out urgent work, such as demolition, to reduce or remove a danger. Although we understood that she felt that they should not have done so in this case, this was a discretionary decision for them to make. We cannot question the merits of discretionary decisions unless we find failings, which we did not find in this case.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained to us about the council's handling of repairs to her bathroom. She said there were delays in carrying out the repairs and that she had experienced poor communication with the council and contractors. She also said the contractors caused damage to her house while carrying out the repairs.

We asked Ms C for more information to help us investigate this. However, she then told us that she had paid private contractors to repair the damage and wanted to withdraw her complaints. In accordance with Ms C's wishes, we stopped investigating and closed our file.

Summary

After a tank in her loft burst, Ms C submitted a compensation claim to the council. They wrote to her with an offer of compensation, but said that she would not receive any money as it would be set against her council tax arrears. Ms C disputed the outstanding council tax, as she said that the council did not make her aware of it and she queried their right to offset the compensation against her council tax.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. The council provided clear evidence that council tax notices, reminders and warrant notices had been sent to Ms C each year, and there was evidence that they had phoned Ms C about her outstanding bill. Their procedure for compensation payments also said that they had the right to offset these against any outstanding debt, including council tax arrears. In addition the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 gave them the right to use information gathered under any other function in their council tax levying process.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council decided that some of his complaints were not eligible to be dealt with by the complaints review committee (CRC), which is the final stage of the council's social work complaints process. The council, by law, have a special process for dealing with complaints about social work services. The council said, and we agreed, that the particular complaints Mr C wanted the committee to look at were primarily educational rather than social work matters. The council had, at each stage of their complaints process, told Mr C that he should complain to the part of the council responsible for education, but we found that he had chosen to disregard this advice.

Mr C also complained about the role of a council legal adviser during the committee meeting. He said that the officer had gone beyond her remit by asking him a question which he felt was an attempt to discredit his evidence. We found that the legal adviser had not acted unreasonably in asking the question, and the committee chairperson told us the question was relevant and reasonable. However, we thought it would have been helpful for the council to explain the role of each participant in advance of the committee and we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider producing a short guidance note explaining the role and rights of participants. This could be shared in advance of a CRC or explained by the chair on the day of the hearing.

Summary

Ms C complained that, after an incident at her child’s school, she was not told that day that her child would be excluded from school the following day. The council said that written notification was provided on the day. This was given to the child to pass on to Ms C, but they did not do so.

Our investigation found, however, that the council failed to follow their own guidance which required them to notify a parent orally and in writing on the day a decision is taken to exclude a child. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the school apologise to Ms C for not advising her orally on the date of the incident that her child was not to return to school the following day; and
• ensure that staff in the school in question are aware of their obligation to advise parents/carers orally on the day they decide to exclude a young person and they are required to seek agreement from parents/carers if a young person is out on investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council repeatedly issued incorrect council tax notices and, when his tenant left, failed to apply exemption he was due for a property he let out. He said they did not record payments he made against his council tax liability, for which he had receipts, and that his hand-delivered letters to council offices were not passed on to the council tax department. The council continued to issue late payment charges, final demands and then summary warrants for the amounts they said he was due, despite his letters questioning the amount he owed. Mr C said the council did not respond reasonably to his communications and complaints.

During the course of our investigation the council resolved Mr C's concerns about his council tax account. They also accepted that they could have responded to his complaints earlier, in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. The planning consent required the developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). Mr C said that residents within the CPZ were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits because of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic from the development. However, ten years later the council introduced charges for these permits, and said that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered the ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free of charge as the costs were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from the residents.

Although there was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely, we found no evidence of this promise having been made. The evidence indicated that the council's primary concern during the planning process was to secure funding for the new CPZ through a legal agreement with the developer. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who considered that it would have been inappropriate to attach a longer timescale than ten years to the agreement, and so we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to seek to recover costs after this period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ, and that was publicised at the time, included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges in the future. Mr C also raised concerns about the method the council used to introduce the charges. However, we found that his dispute with them about this was based upon a legal interpretation on which we could not comment.

Mr C made additional complaints about the council's consultation with residents about a proposed extension to the CPZ and the fact that they allowed the development to be occupied before the CPZ was extended, contrary to a planning condition. We were satisfied that the council consulted with affected residents and noted that this led to a change in their position on the extension. Based on advice from our planning adviser, we were also satisfied that it was reasonable to allow the development to be occupied in the circumstances.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, after she objected to her neighbour's planning application, the council allowed significant amendments and changes to it without telling her or allowing her to comment again. They approved the changed application, and Mrs C said that this seriously compromised her privacy. She also complained about the information the council provided in responding to her concerns and about the way they handled her complaint.

We obtained independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that, because of Mrs C's original objections to the planning application, the council required the applicant to make changes to ensure that Mrs C's property was not overlooked. These changes were not, however, significant in terms of planning legislation and were to ensure that the development complied with the council's guidelines. The law did not require the council to advise Mrs C about the variations, there was no requirement for her to be re-notified about them and we found no evidence of any shortcoming in the way in which the planning application was handled. However, we found that a report of handling was not included in the planning register, which is a statutory requirement, and so we upheld the complaint. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the information from council officers was faulty, although their complaints handling was poor, as she was not correctly signposted to the next stage and their final letter to her was not sufficiently specific.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence that the software problems that caused the situation with registration of the report of handling have now been remedied to their satisfaction;
• make a formal apology for the failures identified; and
• ensure that the officers concerned are aware of the necessity of complying with the council's stated complaints process.

Summary

Mr C's neighbour constructed an extension to their house, which encroached on Mr C's land. Mr C alerted the council to this, and planning enforcement had visited the site. The council took the view that enforcement action would be inappropriate, and then accepted an amendment to the building warrant originally issued for the extension. As the extension as built complied with the amended warrant, the council granted a certificate of completion. Mr C objected to this on the grounds that it allowed a building which did not comply with the original plans to be constructed and then approved retrospectively, regardless of whether it had been built on land belonging to someone else. Mr C complained that the council's response was inadequate, and that it would have been appropriate for them to have taken more direct enforcement action. Although the council did not take enforcement action, they did place the property on the register of planning enforcement, which is a record of breaches of planning control.

Our planning adviser said that the council had acted in accordance with recognised planning custom and practice. He said that enforcement was a discretionary power, and that the council was entitled to take a view on whether the breach of planning conditions was so great that they should require the extension to be pulled down. The adviser also noted that keeping the property on the register of planning enforcement would have consequences for the property owners should they wish to sell their property. He did not consider that the council could be accused of taking no action in this case. He also said that the submission of amended documentation to regularise the planning situation was appropriate and that the council would not have been entitled to refuse these amendments or accept the subsequent completion certificate.

We found that the council had acted reasonably and appropriately.