Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not made reasonable efforts to investigate a noise nuisance he reported. We found that the council had made frequent visits to Mr C's property to assess the noise but there were no breaches of relevant noise levels. There was no further action they could take and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably demanded payment for works carried out under a statutory notice, without providing an invoice with a detailed breakdown of the costs. He was dissatisfied with the information they provided, and said that they were legally required to provide a detailed invoice, which they had failed to do.

Our investigation found that the council had followed their usual practice when issuing the invoice. Although Mr C considered that they had not met the requirements on the detail that should be provided, they had clearly responded when he requested more information. As we found nothing wrong in their handling of the matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a development in his area. He was concerned about the council planning and transportation officers' relationship with the developer and their agent, and believed that officers had acted inappropriately by advising the developer/agent how to circumvent the local plan for the area. Mr C said the planning department had misinterpreted Scottish Government guidance on whether a transport assessment was required for the development and that the planning and transportation departments colluded with a developer's agent to avoid a full traffic assessment.

We obtained independent advice on the case from a planning adviser. Our adviser said that Scottish Government guidance and planning policy made it clear that pre-application discussions between a developer and a council were actively encouraged, and were viewed as adding value at the start of the development management process. The fact that pre-application discussions took place between the developer's agent and the council in this case was, therefore, entirely reasonable.

We found no evidence of the planning department using inappropriate language in communications with the developer or that they became too friendly with the developer or their agent. Not did we find any evidence that the department exceeded their remit in the advice they provided on the local plan. To ensure transparency in the planning process, however, we considered that meetings with developers, including welcome meetings, should be minuted. We found that, on balance, the transport department did not collude with the developer's representative to avoid a traffic impact assessment.

In terms of the requirement for a transport assessment, we concluded that the interpretation of planning guidance was a matter of professional judgment for the council as planning authority. However, before exercising that judgement, the planning committee should have had full information to ensure that their decision was both transparent and well documented. This was a major planning application and the issue of increased traffic was a key matter. We considered that the information was incomplete, both in the report to the committee about the Scottish Government guidance on such assessments and in an external consultants' assessment commissioned by the council on the transport methodology used.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• amend their website to ensure that it accurately reflects the content of their complaints procedure on planning complaints;
• feed back our decision on this complaint to the officers involved to prevent the failings identified occurring in future;
• make sure that their planning and transport departments ensure that relevant Scottish Government guidance and its application is clearly represented in planning reports; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C reported dampness in his property that he said was caused by the neighbouring council property. Council officers visited the site and tests were carried out on cavity wall insulation. An independent survey commissioned by the council found that the dampness did not come from the council property but said that the lack of a damp proof course at one location might contribute to moisture building up in a cupboard. The council said they would investigate the installation of a damp proof course and carry out the work required to put right the damp course issue. Mr C, however, disputed the survey report saying that it did not accord with what he and his partner were told by the workmen carrying out the tests. When the contractors attended to carry out repairs after the cavity wall tests, Mr C's partner sent them away, so they did not carry out damp proofing work. Mr C said that access to his property was not required to do this. He complained to the council about continuing problems with dampness and that council officers had not responded reasonably to his emails and calls. The council investigated and did not uphold his complaints, so he complained to us.

Our investigation reviewed the survey reports and correspondence between Mr C and the council. We found that the council had clearly established that the dampness in Mr C's property did not originate from the council property. In an effort to help Mr C they had said they would carry out work on one aspect as a goodwill gesture, but they were then refused access to infill the inspection holes opened up when the independent survey was carried out. We found that the council should have been clearer about what they communicated to Mr C but they had confirmed the dampness was not coming from the council property and that they were not responsible for work on the property that Mr C owned. We did not uphold the complaint, but made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• contact Mr C to discuss arrangements for the inspection holes to be re-filled.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments to their service in order to meet his needs. He went to their office to apply for housing benefit, but was unable to use the customer computers to complete an online application due to his disabilities. He, therefore, requested a paper application but due to the nature of his disabilities he needed this on coloured paper and the council only kept stocks of white paper. In complaining about this, Mr C also raised concerns that the council's postal correspondence was sent to him on white paper.

The council noted that they had various options in place to allow customers to access their service. They explained that appointments can be arranged with staff, who can assist with the completion of online applications. Alternatively, customers can apply over the phone or can apply online by visiting their website. We noted Mr C had been able to submit a phone application on the same day he visited the council office. The council also explained that customers can access their benefit accounts online and all correspondence can be viewed. They said that, by offering these alternatives, they were complying with their duties under equality legislation.

As Mr C was able to submit an application over the phone, we were satisfied that there was an accessible option for him and he was not prevented from claiming benefit. We were also satisfied that a reasonable alternative existed for him to view general correspondence, by accessing his online account, and we were not aware of any barriers preventing him from doing so. Although it was not for us to reach a view on the legal position, we were assured that the council had carefully considered whether their service was equipped to meet Mr C's needs, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C moved out of a council property. Before moving out he was asked to replace a kitchen and bedroom door and to fill in part of another door where a lock had been fitted. Mr C told us that he carried out these repairs and that a council representative passed them as acceptable. Two months after moving out, Mr C received a bill for the doors as the council said that they had had to replace them, and he complained to us about this.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In response to our investigation the council supplied photographs of the doors that they had replaced, showing clear damage to them. They also supplied their policies which showed that the tenant had to make necessary repairs before vacating the property and allowed the council to recharge the tenant for the costs of replacing any fittings or making repairs. We found no evidence proving that a council representative passed the repairs as acceptable.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's son was not allocated a place at their first choice of nursery, and they couple complained that the council did not follow their policy in terms of deadlines for applications and allocation meeting dates when places were allocated. The council investigated Mr and Mrs C's complaint, and advised that they had exhausted the appeals process as laid out in the nursery education admission policy and both stages of the council's complaints procedure.

Mr C then brought his complaint to us. We reviewed the correspondence between him and the council, as well as council policies on the allocation of nursery places and complaints handling, and considered the management of waiting lists and the introduction of new policy. We found that the council had operated allocations and nursery place waiting lists in line with policy and, responding to parental feedback, had taken steps to anticipate changes being introduced in their new policy. We found that Mr C's son was not disadvantaged by the council's actions. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we found that the council's responses to it were sometimes confusing and contradictory, and so we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the lack of clarity in their responses to Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C, a tenant of the council, complained about difficulties arranging repairs to her home. Mrs C said there were delays in carrying out several repairs, and the council failed to return her calls or communicate with her, except when she made formal complaints. Mrs C was also concerned that her energy costs for the year were very high, which she thought could be due to the delays in repairs to windows and doors, or to a fault in her boiler (which was not inspected by the council for two months after she reported it).

The council accepted that their communication was poor, and apologised to Mrs C for this. However, the council said that the energy costs could not have been affected by the faulty boiler, as this would have used less, not more, electricity.

After investigating these issues, we upheld Mrs C's complaints. There was no evidence that the faulty boiler increased Mrs C's energy costs and, while the delays in repairing the doors and windows might have affected her heating costs, it was not possible to determine this for certain. However, we found that there was unreasonable delay in the council inspecting Mrs C's faulty boiler, as well as in carrying out several repairs to her house. We also found that the council did not respond reasonably to Mrs C's attempts to contact them, except when she made formal complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider inspecting boiler and heating systems (to ensure they are functioning properly, in addition to electrical safety) as part of the preparation of a void property for a new tenancy;
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings our investigation found;
• review their processes to ensure that repair requests are promptly recorded and carried out, including where requests are made verbally, or as a result of a property visit; and
• take steps to ensure there is a robust process for logging and following up calls relating to housing repairs.

Summary

Ms C applied to the council on behalf of her son for a Young Scot card and education maintenance allowance. There were delays in processing her applications and because of that, Ms C complained to the council. She then complained to us because she said the council failed to address her complaint appropriately.

Having reviewed the council's complaint file and related documents, we found that the council could have taken steps to outline what the relevant procedures and likely timescales were in relation to each application. We also considered that they could have explained in more detail what had happened to the Young Scot card application. In addition, the council failed to address Ms C's concerns about her application for education maintenance allowance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a time and trouble payment in recognition of the failings identified with the handling of the application for a Young Scot card; and
• apologise for failing to address Ms C's complaint about the handling of the application for education maintenance allowance.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was charged late payment fees for failing to renew his landlord registration in time. He said that he had been unable to access his account to renew online and had made efforts to pay in person at the council's offices. However, the council were unable to accept payment as he had not completed the application form. Mr C eventually completed a paper application but by then his registration had already expired and late payment fees automatically applied.

We found that the council sent Mr C three reminders before his registration expired, which they were required to do under their landlord registration procedure. These explained how he could renew online and provided a phone number for him to contact should he need a paper application. However, Mr C did not contact this number until after his registration expired. While he had made efforts to pay the associated fee, an application was required so that appropriate declarations could be made before an invoice could be generated and payment accepted.

Mr C also complained that he was misinformed by staff when he attended the council's offices to try to pay, but we could find no evidence to support this. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.