Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's communication with them in relation to their concerns about the release of personal information was unreasonable. They said that communication was vague, and failed to address their concerns and the specific points they had raised.

We found that there were errors in relation to information displayed on a section of the council's website. However, our investigation found that the council's communications with the couple about the matter had been clear and fully addressed their specific concerns. They had also previously apologised to Mr and Mrs C.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council rejected a new complaint following a complaints review panel. We found that the council had considered her complaint and had decided, as they were entitled to, that Mrs C was raising the same or similar points as had already been dealt with. In light of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had not followed appropriate and mandatory procedures when they approved a planning application, which removed a condition that local slate had to be used on a new visitor centre. When Ms C complained to the council her complaint was not upheld, but she said there had been bias towards the developer and appropriate checking of information was not carried out.

Our investigation considered all correspondence between Ms C and the council, the detailed planning reports and planning committee meetings, as well as planning legislation and local plans. We found that the council had followed appropriate procedures when they amended the condition and had reasonably considered the slate options for the visitor centre. Although strong differences of opinion were expressed, the final decision of the planning committee to use a different slate was one they were entitled to take.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live on a road that was closed following a landslide. They complained that this was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below their street, and felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. They also complained about the length of time taken by the council to reach a decision as to what to do with their road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C lives on a road that was closed following a landslide. He complained that the landslide was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below his street. Mr C felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. He also complained about the length of time the council took to decide what to do with the road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had to pay a service charge while he was in temporary accommodation. He also complained that the council did not process his medical assessment form in line with their procedure, and did not communicate properly with him about an offer of housing.

The council said that the service charge was in line with their policy and is for maintaining temporary accommodation, which has a higher turnover than the main housing stock. They said that they had responded to Mr C about his medical assessment application and explained how medical points are awarded. They also apologised for not being proactive in contacting him about his offer of accommodation.

As we found that the service charge was in line with the council's policy, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about this. The level of the charge is a discretionary decision for the council to make. However, we found that the council took longer than the four weeks specified in their policy to process his medical assessment application and did not let him know that there was a delay, so we upheld that complaint. We also found that they had failed to correctly categorise the property Mr C was offered, as empty (void) properties such as that one, which need work that will take more than 15 working days should be recorded as 'not offerable'. They had also allowed Mr C to accept the offer as 'subject to viewing' which contravened their void management procedure. In light of these findings, we also upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C with an apology for failing to process his medical assessment application in line with their procedure;
• revisit their policy on processing medical assessment forms and ensure that if they are unable to meet the four week deadline that they advise applicants of the delay;
• issue Mr C with an apology for failing to process his offer of accommodation in line with their procedure; and
• revisit their procedure on void management, and remind all staff that properties requiring works of more than 15 working days should be recorded as 'not offerable' and that properties cannot be accepted 'subject to viewing'.