Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that his local council did not handle a retrospective planning application fairly or in line with their own procedures. Neighbours had demolished a boundary wall and removed hedging between their and Mr C's property. When they applied for retrospective planning permission for this, Mr C and others lodged objections, and he then complained that these were not dealt with properly. He said that none of the objectors was given the opportunity to speak at the planning committee meeting, at which permission was granted subject to some conditions. Mr C also complained that the application was not dealt with properly, including that some information was not available on the council's website, meeting papers were not published in time to give objectors time to correspond with the council, and that a council planning representative gave inaccurate, incomplete and/or misleading information to the meeting.

Our investigation included taking advice from one of our planning advisers and reviewing relevant legislation. We found that the council's planning process complied with the requirements of the legislation, and that the application had been dealt with in line with the process. On the specific issues raised by Mr C, we found that sufficient information about the application had been available to the public during the planning process. The relevant papers were published four working days before the meeting and this complied with the legislation, which requires any relevant papers to be published three full working days beforehand. The process does not allow objectors to address planning committee meetings, but we found that all the objections were included and responded to in the planning officer's report to the committee. Therefore, overall we considered that the council had processed the application in accordance with their process and the governing legislation.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C, who are council tenants, complained that the council refused to answer their complaints, that they requested urgent maintenance/repair jobs at the property but that they themselves had to pay the costs, and that the council refused to carry out other work. They also complained that the council failed to deal with a neighbour's anti-social behaviour. In addition, Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the attitude of council staff, said that staff had been racist toward them, and were also unhappy that a member of staff taped a meeting with them. Mr and Mrs C believed that this was part of an organised council campaign against them and that the recording was authorised by senior managers.

Our investigation found that the council had responded to Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Although Mr and Mrs C did not agree with their decisions, this did not mean that the council acted improperly. We found that the council had addressed the issue of discrimination robustly, but that Mr and Mrs C had provided no evidence of discrimination, other than their dissatisfaction with the council's services. The council had tried to investigate the complaint of anti-social behaviour, but had been prevented from doing so effectively because Mr and Mrs C had refused to cooperate with the investigation.

We also found that the council had acknowledged and acted on requests for repairs, but progress had been slow because of the breakdown in their relationship with Mr and Mrs C. The council provided evidence that the works had been completed and that they had made reasonable efforts to engage with Mr and Mrs C to ensure this was done.

Finally, they had already acknowledged that it had been wrong for Mr and Mrs C to be recorded. They had apologised for this and had taken action to stop it happening again. We found no evidence that this incident was organised or approved in advance by managers, and found that the council had acted quickly to address this when Mr and Mrs C complained.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined a planning application under delegated powers (where planning officers, in certain circumstances, may handle some applications), rather than referring the matter to a committee. He also complained that the planning application – which was retrospective – caused the loss of a local access route.

As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Mr C had understood that the number of objections to the application meant that a committee would have to make the decision on it. For example, he said that his wife had been told on the phone that each person who signed a petition would count as an individual objector, yet he said a petition against the application had been classed as a single objection. The council denied having said this, and in the absence of evidence of this we could not verify what had actually been said. Although Mr C felt that enough objections were made for the matter to be considered by committee, we did not uphold his complaint as our adviser was clear that the application was handled in line with the relevant policy.

In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the adviser said that the planning officer's report had contained one apparent error but had handled the wider question of access appropriately. Although a materially significant error of fact could, potentially, have undermined the council's decision-making process, it was clear in the report that access through the site was considered. The report said that a neighbouring route provided sufficient access, while the relative weight given to factors was a matter of professional judgment, which we could not question where we saw no evidence of maladministration. In short, the adviser said that the council made a decision they were entitled to make, and viewed as a whole, we did not consider the evidence to be sufficient to call the council's wider decision-making process into question.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate his complaint about a defect in the drainage pipe serving his house. He said that there was an intermittent pungent smell, and evidence of dampness. We found that the matter had been investigated by three council departments. Some repairs had been undertaken, and the council believed that they had taken reasonable steps. As no-one from the council had contacted Mr C for four months, we asked them to call back to check if the situation remained as they had left matters. The council did so, and found that there was a problem in another area under the floorboards. The council carried out repairs, and Mr C informed us that he was satisfied that the matter had been investigated properly. We closed the case on the basis that a resolution had been achieved.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his request for information about building standards. He felt the council had been unreasonably obstructive. We found that it took the council more than four months to acknowledge Mr C's request for information and over six months to respond. This was unacceptable. Although the council had apologised for the delay they had not acknowledged the considerable time and effort Mr C and his MP had to go to before getting a response. We asked the council to offer an apology which took account of this. The council told us the delay happened at a time of staff transition. We concluded that even during a time of reorganisation or transition the council should put arrangements in place to deal with incoming letters. We asked the council to carry out a review to check that suitable arrangements for handling correspondence within their building standards team were now in place.

We did not find the content of the council's response to Mr C to be unreasonable. The information Mr C requested was readily available and free to view online. Nevertheless, when asked to reconsider, they did provide the hard copy information Mr C had asked for.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide an apology which recognises the significant time, effort and inconvenience caused by the repeated failure to reply to correspondence over a six month period; and
• review the procedure within building standards for dealing with incoming correspondence to ensure it is now sufficiently robust and report back to us.

Summary

Mr C was involved in correspondence with the council about a transport issue and submitted a complaint. He received an acknowledgement email but no further response from the council that referred to the complaint or dealt with the issues he had raised. Mr C raised his complaint with us. We found that the council had received the complaint but a procedural failure meant that the relevant department had not taken action on it. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to his complaint;
• respond fully to Mr C's complaint; and
• undertake a practical test to confirm that the further training given has been successful in ensuring that no further correspondence is missed.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to ensure that scheduled refuse and recycling collections took place at his building.

We looked at Mr C's complaints to the council, the council's responses, and the council's records of inspection of cleansing operations. We found that there had been problems with collections at times over the past three years. Mr C had to contact the council repeatedly over this time, which indicated a poor standard of service from the council, who appeared to be failing in their responsibility to deal effectively with collections at Mr C's building.

We found there was a lack of co-ordination and poor communication about the collections within the relevant council department. We noted that the department was seeking a long-term resolution to the problem. However, based on the evidence, we concluded that the problem had not been resolved. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to ensure that scheduled refuse and recycling collections took place; and
• review the presentation and collection of refuse and recycling at Mr C's building to ensure that scheduled collections take place.

Summary

Mr C was contacted by the council regarding outstanding council tax arrears in 2009. He began a payment plan with one of the council's debt collection companies (company 1) and continued to pay them until December 2013. In December 2013 Mr C was contacted by another of the council's debt collection companies (company 2). They told him that his arrears were with them and said he needed to set up a payment plan with them.

Mr C contacted the council to confirm that he should pay company 2, rather than company 1 as he had been doing previously. The council responded telling Mr C that his arrears had been passed to company 2 much earlier than December 2013.

Mr C complained that the council had not kept him reasonably informed about where his arrears were and whom he was meant to pay. He also complained that company 1 had not cancelled his original payment plan when his arrears had moved.

Our investigation found that the council could not provide evidence that Mr C had been told about the change of debt collection company from company 1 to company 2. They had also given contradictory information about when Mr C's debt had moved and where to. Because of this, Mr C was not sure whether the council had received all the payments he had made. They also had not followed their complaints handling procedure in responding to his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had not kept him reasonably informed about his arrears and made recommendations to address this.

However, we found that according to the terms of the contract company 1 and company 2 have with the council on collecting arrears, the responsibility to notify the customer of a change in arrangements lies with the new company rather than the old. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• arrange a meeting with Mr C to clarify what payments have been received and what arrears they have been applied to;
• remind relevant staff of the importance of investigating complaints thoroughly, with regard to all relevant evidence;
• review data sharing agreements with debt collection companies to ensure access to evidence for complaint investigations; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

When the council created a multi-surface games court in the park close to Mr C's home they removed a number of trees. This dramatically changed the outlook from Mr C's window. Mr C complained when, in spite of repeated assurances that the council would replace foliage and would keep him informed, they did not do this. Mr C complained to us about this and the way in which the council responded to his complaint and enquiries.

Our investigation looked at all the available evidence, including the council's correspondence with Mr C, the internal council correspondence and the council's complaints handling procedures. We found that they had acted reasonably by meeting Mr C at the site and in determining that replanting outside Mr C's home was adequate. However, we found that his complaints about the assurances he had been given were not handled promptly and the investigation response he received was not detailed enough to address the issues arising from his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for not responding promptly to his complaint;
• review their practice with relevant staff to ensure that letters of complaint are correctly identified and handled; and
• consider how best to ensure that investigation responses are sufficiently detailed.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the council some time ago about the refuse collection service in his street. The council apologised and took action to improve Mr C's experience of the service. They told him that the local supervisor would monitor collections, gave him direct contact details to report any further difficulties and assured him that they would fully investigate any further service failings. After giving the council time to allow these measures to be implemented, Mr C felt that the service had not improved and complained again.

The council said that they treated this as a new complaint because more than a year had passed since he first complained. They did not, however, acknowledge or respond to it, and Mr C complained again. As well as complaining about refuse collection he also raised concerns about the council's complaints handling, but they did not pick up on this and Mr C asked us to look at his complaint.

Our investigation found that the council's complaints handling procedure (CHP), which is based on the model CHP from our Complaints Standards Authority, says that staff should use discretion when applying timescales. We found that Mr C contacted the council on an almost monthly basis when the service did not improve, which meant that his second complaint was not a new one. It was about an ongoing issue and should have been dealt with at stage two of their CHP. The CHP also says that the council will establish what a complaint is about at the start, but we saw no evidence that they did so in Mr C's case. Neither did we see evidence that the stage two response had senior executive sign-off which, again, is contrary to the CHP. We found that the council did not handle Mr C's complaint reasonably, and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation identified; and
• remind staff of the requirements of the model CHP, focusing in particular on the failings our investigation identified.