Local Government

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council had charged her client (Ms A) rent for a property that was uninhabitable. After taking on a new tenancy, Ms A had complained to the council that she had been unable to live in the property since the tenancy commenced due to water ingress and dampness. The council agreed to decant her to another property. The council investigated Ms A's complaint and agreed to a rent abatement (refund on rent due), but Ms A was unhappy that the refund was not backdated to when she said she was unable to live in the property, which was a few months before she contacted the council about this matter. When the council agreed to decant Ms A, they did not charge rent at the decant property which meant that Ms A could not claim housing benefit that she said she was due.

We considered the correspondence with the council, records of payments and the tenancy agreement as well as the council's guidance notes for rent abatement and decant procedures. We found that the council had followed their procedures and had reasonably awarded a rent abatement from when they were informed by Ms A that she was not able to live in the property until she moved into decant property which later became her permanent residency. The council also had acted within their guidelines regarding charging Ms A for the original property and not the decant and that she had been paid housing benefit due to her in line with housing benefit regulations. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council seized his vehicle from his private land many years ago and arranged for it to be destroyed. He said he reported the theft of the vehicle to the police at the time but that he only recently learned, through contact with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), that the council had removed it. He raised concerns that they had acted illegally in doing so.

The council told Mr C that they no longer held records of events dating that far back. They confirmed this to us, advising that they only retain records for six years. We asked Mr C to provide a copy of the information from the DVLA but he did not do so. In the circumstances, we were unable to evidence what happened to Mr C's vehicle.

We noted that, under the terms of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, the council have legal powers to remove vehicles from private land if they are considered to have been abandoned. They are required to take certain steps before doing so. However, as we were unable to see what, if any, actions they took in this case we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a claim to the council for damage from a road accident caused by a pothole, saying that they had not maintained the road in line with their procedures. The council refused his claim, as they said they had complied with their procedures for inspecting the road, and repaired the pothole within the required time-frame. They also said the pothole was less than the minimum depth required for them to be liable for the accident. Mr C disagreed with several of these findings, and complained to the council that they had not handled his claim reasonably. They apologised for delays in responding, but did not agree that they had relied on inaccurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained to us about their handling of his claim and complaint.

We found that the council had used inaccurate information when determining his claim, as they had used inspection dates for the wrong route and had relied on a measurement that they acknowledged was probably an estimate rather than an actual measurement. Although Mr C had video evidence of the pothole depth, which he offered to share, the council had not taken account of this. We also found that they failed to deal with his complaints reasonably, as they did not acknowledge or respond within the required time-frames, and did not consider all the available evidence. When Mr C complained that the information was inaccurate, the council double-checked the accident inspection report they had relied on, but did not compare this to documents that would have shown that the information was inaccurate.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures for identifying, logging and tracking complaints, to ensure that the time-frames in the complaints handling procedure are met;
• remind complaints handling staff of the importance of considering and testing all the evidence available, particularly where factual issues are disputed by the complainant;
• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
• consider amending their job ticket templates, so that it is clear the published 'target date' is for inspection rather than repair, and to include the target date for repairs; and
• reconsider Mr C's claim, in line with their procedures.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the way staff at a council-run community centre (the centre) communicated with her; that they had allowed photographs to be taken of her children against her wishes; failed to properly investigate an allegation that a staff member had referred in an offensive way to one of her children; and unreasonably failed to allow one of her children to go on a trip.

Ms A complained that staff at the centre did not provide her with information about events in the accessible format she had requested. Our investigation found that the council had acknowledged that there had been some inconsistency in providing information to Ms A in the format she had requested. Action was taken by the council to ensure that all communication was appropriate to Ms A's needs and, as this action had been taken, the council did not uphold Ms A's complaint on this issue. We considered that the action taken by the council had been reasonable and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint about this.

In relation to photographs taken of Ms A's children during a trip, Ms A had completed a form specifically refusing permission for her children to be photographed. The council acknowledged their error and apologised for this. As a result of Ms A's complaint, the council arranged staff training and also arranged for the deletion of the photographs in the presence of Ms A and her advocate. We considered that this was reasonable.

In relation to Ms C's other complaints about allegations of an offensive term being used towards her child, and her child's exclusion from a trip, we found that neither of these complaints could be substantiated with evidence, so we did not uphold these complaints.

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.