Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about a bill the council issued them for rechargable repairs. A year previously the council had helped check and fit three light fittings for Mr and Mrs C. When they terminated the tenancy they had asked at the council offices if they should leave the light fittings in place. Mr and Mrs C said that the council staff phoned another member of staff who advised them to leave the lights and there would be no charge.

When Mr and Mrs C complained the council said that they had spoken to staff, who said that they would not have given that advice.

During our investigation we found that the council had not spoken to the relevant staff during their investigation. We asked them to speak to those staff members during the course of our investigation, but they did not.

As the council could not demonstrate that they had thoroughly investigated the main point of Mr and Mrs C's complaint, we upheld their complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind relevant staff of the importance of complying with the SPSO complaints handling principles;
• consider removing the outstanding charges; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably charged him for repairs after he vacated their property. When he left the property the council had sent him a bill for repairs that they said needed carried out. Mr C said he had caused some of the damage, but not other items that were listed. The council then cancelled some of the charges but said that the remaining ones stood.

Our investigation found that the council had photographic evidence of the repairs that they ultimately asked Mr C to pay for. We also found that they had clear guidance in their policy about charging for damage, and that this was in the tenancy agreement that Mr C had signed. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to consider a councillor's request that his neighbour's planning application be referred to the council's planning committee. The councillor had emailed the council to ask that they let him know when a decision was due to be made on the application so that he could ask for it to be referred to the planning committee. The council had then notified councillors that the application would be decided by a planning officer under delegated authority, unless a request to refer the application to the planning committee was received within seven days. This addressed the councillor's request. Under the council's scheme of delegation, councillors have seven days in which to request referral to the planning committee, otherwise the council issue the decision on the application. The councillor also has to prepare a statement of reasons giving the reasons why the planning committee should determine the application. No request for referral to the planning committee was received within the seven day period and the council then made a decision on the application.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council had acted in line with their scheme of delegation and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had ignored a character appraisal for the local area (a description of the architectural and historic character and significance of the area) when they made a decision on the application. We found that the council had taken the character appraisal into account, but had found that this conflicted with national guidance, which carries more weight than local policies. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C submitted a quote to the council to provide them with equipment for a piece of work they were doing. He explained that he prepared a specification and submitted the quote on the basis that he would be considered a 'specialist supplier' and that, as a result, no other tenders would be sought for this work. He made clear in his quote that it included a fee for the preparatory work which would only be payable in the event that he was not considered a 'specialist supplier'. He said that the council subsequently sought two further quotes and awarded the tender to another party. He complained to us that the council had said he would be considered as a specialist supplier and yet they awarded the contract elsewhere, that they did not treat all three companies who tendered in a consistent way, and that they refused to pay his fee.

The council said that Mr C was never told he would be the sole bidder and that they were unable to tender in this way. They said that they did treat all three companies consistently and that they would not pay the fee as they did not agree to the specialist supplier status.

We could not say whether Mr C was advised that he would be considered a specialist supplier. We did find, however, that the council had not followed the correct procedure as they approached him for a quote before seeking two further quotes. They should have obtained all three simultaneously. We also found conflicting comments about the extent to which Mr C's tender was used to develop the brief and specification for the other quotes, and we questioned the council's assumptions that tenderers may not be able to complete the work within the deadline. We also noted that they did not notify Mr C of the outcome of the tender. As the council had not followed the correct process when tendering for the contract and as, on balance, we were not convinced that all tenderers were treated in the same way, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. We recommended that they review their procedures for tendering, apologise to Mr C and pay his fee.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• confirm to us that steps have been taken to ensure that future procurement/tendering processes will be carried out in a fair and consistent manner;
• pay Mr C the requested service fee for their specification and design work; and
• apologise to Mr C for the process failings which this investigation has highlighted.

When it was originally published in January 2015, this case was wrongly categorised as 'fully upheld'.  The correct category is 'some upheld'.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that they had not taken action in response to reports of health and safety issues at a residential caravan site, including abandoned vehicles, and piles of wood and debris that could be a fire hazard. The council first handled Mr C's complaint as a service request. He then wrote to the council again, asking for his original letter to be treated as a complaint. The council told Mr C that he would need to agree with them what he was complaining about and that after this they would respond to his complaint within 20 working days. The council met with Mr C three weeks later and agreed the points of the complaint. They investigated his complaint and gave him a response another four weeks later.

Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response, and brought his complaint to us. He complained that they had failed to deal with his complaint in line with their procedures, failed to take action in response to health and safety concerns at the site, and failed to consider formal action under the legislation to revoke the site owners' licence.

We investigated Mr C's complaint, and found that the council had not dealt with it in line with their procedures. They had wrongly interpreted the complaints handling timescales and there were unreasonable delays in responding to him. They also gave some incorrect information in their investigation report and failed to clearly respond to all of the agreed points of complaint. We also found, on balance, that they had not taken reasonable action in response to Mr C’s concerns about health and safety. While they had responded well to these at first, there was no evidence that they then followed up appropriately on the measures they put in place. However, we found that the council had not failed to consider taking action under the legislation, as they were waiting for action by a third party, which could resolve the issues, before considering formal action themselves.

We issued a decision in which we recommended, amongst other things, that the council consider developing a policy in relation to their health and safety enforcement obligations. In response, the council provided copies of several policies relating to health and safety, which they had not provided before. We pointed out that they should have sent us these during our investigation, and we issued a revised decision on the complaint, with new recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure in relation to timeframes;
• raise the complaints handling failings our investigation identified with the relevant staff to ensure a similar situation does not re-occur;
• apologise to Mr C for the failures our investigation identified;
• demonstrate to us that action has been taken in relation to the health and safety concerns Mr C raised;
• remind staff of the requirement in the enforcement policy to inform a person requesting action of the outcome of their request, including where the officer feels that no action is required, or the request is not justified;
• review the enforcement policy, to ensure that there is no unintentional overlap with the complaints handling policy; and
• undertake an internal audit to ensure that requests for action on health and safety issues and reports of accidents are handled in line with the enforcement policy and service delivery plan, including record-keeping requirements, and notify us of the findings.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to formally inform him when a planning application was submitted for development on a neighbouring property. Mr C owned land, on which buildings relating to his business had been erected, next to the proposed development site.

The council said that as there was land near to the planning site that did not contain obvious premises, an advert was placed in the local newspaper to fulfil their obligation to provide notification of the proposed development.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, and we found that the council's actions were reasonable and in line with the relevant guidance on neighbour notification.