Local Government

Summary

Mr C was unhappy about a statutory notice that was served on his property. He was unhappy with the explanations given, the documents received and the charges applied. The council said that they had given reasonable explanations, had provided the necessary documents and charged Mr C appropriately. Mr C disagreed, saying that he should have had this information earlier.

We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether he was appropriately billed as that was a matter for the council - we would only look at how they explained their decisions. Our investigation considered how and when the explanations were given. We found that the council had explained the reasoning for the statutory notice early in the process, provided the documentation requested, apologised for a delay in complaints handling, and added levies and charges in line with council policy. This meant that the council had done as they should have and had handled this reasonably, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C objected to their next-door neighbour's planning application for an extension. The council granted the application, and Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the application process had been handled unfairly. They raised a number of concerns, including that some information on the application was inaccurate and/or provided after the deadline for comments; that the council had not responded to their correspondence asking questions about the planning application process; that the application had been decided by an officer using delegated powers, when it should have been decided by a committee; and that the officer had failed to take relevant planning considerations and guidelines into account in deciding the application.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we upheld one of Mr and Mrs C's complaints - that the council failed to respond to their correspondence asking questions about the planning process. We found that, although the council upheld the complaint about this, they had not apologised or made any recommendations to improve their practices, and we were critical of this failure to learn from what had happened.

We did not uphold the other complaints, as there was no evidence that the council had failed to comply with relevant procedures in allowing additional information to be provided after the deadline for comments, or in deciding the application using delegated powers. While there were minor inaccuracies in the plans the council used, we found that it was reasonable for them to rely on these as the inaccuracies were not so significant that they would affect the decision. The officer had also undertaken a site visit and taken photos to ensure they had accurate information about the site and its surroundings. We also found evidence that the council had taken all of the relevant planning considerations and guidelines into account.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr and Mrs C for failing to reply to their correspondence;
• review the guidance to case officers to ensure that members of the public receive a response to any questions of fact about planning applications; and
• remind complaints handling staff of the importance of addressing any failings identified in complaints investigations, including by apologising where appropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council took enforcement action against him in respect of two property developments. He said that they acted outwith their powers, and were vindictive and biased in their treatment of his developments and complaints.

The council said that, as Mr C had not complied with the planning permissions granted for the two properties, they had taken reasonable actions in enforcing those permissions.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. The adviser said that the council, having identified that the properties did not conform to the planning permissions granted, had all the relevant powers to take enforcement action. We also found there was no evidence that the council had been vindictive or biased towards Mr C in considering planning permissions about his properties or the handling of his complaint. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C made several complaints to the council about the way their child, who has autism, was dealt with at school, in particular where physical intervention had been used. The council investigated and fully or partially upheld many of their complaints. Mr and Mrs C were not, however, satisfied with how the investigation was conducted or the outcome. They complained to us about the investigation and the remedial action taken by the council as a result of the complaints.

Our investigation found that the handling of their complaints was unsatisfactory, in that the council should have taken control more promptly, there were matters that could have been agreed and investigated (as outlined in the council's complaints procedure) at a much earlier stage, and it appeared that the council took no action on the complaints during a period of some eight months. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint, noting that much of the delay was due to the complexity of the issues involved, the large volume of documents that needed to be reviewed and the fact that additional complaints were added during the process.

We also noted that it was originally agreed that an internal investigation would take place as an initial fact-finding exercise, followed by an external investigation. However, after some 250 hours of work, the internal investigation had identified failings in several areas and the majority of Mr and Mrs C's complaints had been either fully or partially upheld. The council, therefore, decided to concentrate on addressing the issues this raised, rather than expending further resources on an additional external investigation. Our view was that this decision was reasonable and proportionate, although it was obviously disappointing for Mr and Mrs C.

On the issue of the remedial action, Mr and Mrs C complained that they had only been provided with a copy of an action plan. Our investigation found, however, that they had been kept updated on the progress of the plan through meetings with the director of the relevant service and a letter from the council's chief executive. We found that the majority of the action points had been implemented but that a few (with city-wide implications) are still ongoing, which we considered reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• in line with the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure they adopted, demonstrate they have learned how to take responsibility for establishing and managing complaints successfully;
• confirm the learning and improvement measures identified as a result of the findings in relation to two of Mr and Mrs C's complaints, and how these have been implemented;
• provide Mr and Mrs C with a copy of the arrangements for the council's co-ordinated support plans;
• contact Mr and Mrs C to arrange a meeting to share new documents relating to the council's physical intervention policy; and
• issue a written apology to the family for not handling one of their complaints appropriately.

Summary

Mr C was staying in homeless accommodation provided by the council. He said that, although he did not wish to leave, his place there was cancelled because he had been spending time elsewhere. The council put his belongings into storage, but did not take an inventory. He complained to us that the council acted unreasonably in not accepting arrangements he made for his belongings to be delivered to a family member, and in disposing of his belongings without compensating him for the loss.

After we discussed this with the council, they told us that they were reviewing their practices about storage, and agreed to resolve the complaint by meeting Mr C's claim for loss of his belongings. Mr C was happy with this outcome.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council did not give her accurate information about the availability of parking season tickets. Miss C said that she had been asking them for several years how she could obtain a permit to park near her retail premises. She said that the council had advised her that they did not issue business parking permits, only residential ones. Miss C was then told some years later that she could purchase a season ticket for the all-day parking areas. She said that this would have saved her money and wanted the council to reimburse her for the money she could have saved if she had a season ticket.

We found that there was no evidence of the wording of Miss C's request for information and that the council, in saying that they did not supply business parking permits, had provided accurate information. We also found that the council's guide to parking provides details about the availability of season tickets and is available to the public.

Miss C also complained that a neighbouring retailer had been issued with a free parking permit and wanted the council to explain this and issue her with the same permit. We found that the permit held by the neighbouring retailer was not relevant to Miss C's circumstances, and the council's position that they could not discuss another individual's details with Miss C was reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the council handled a planning application for an extension to the property next to hers. She said that the site visit was inadequate, and the plans and report inaccurate as they said her property was north, rather than west, of the proposed development. She said that this meant the council could not have taken full account of the impact of the proposed extension on the daylight and sunlight to her home. She also said that they had not taken account of guidance about overshadowing and loss of outlook, as there was no evidence that they had made full calculations of the proposal, as set out in that guidance. She also said that she was told that her complaint would be investigated independently, but the response came from the planning department, which she did not consider sufficiently independent.

We reviewed the information from Mrs C and from the council, and took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our adviser said that the site visit was sufficient to establish the impact of the proposed extension on Mrs C's property, and provided enough information to decide the application. The plans were also sufficient for the council to have assessed the impact on the amenity of Mrs C's property, including the daylight calculations specified in guidance. He was critical that the council did not provide evidence of these calculations but, based on the planning report, he considered that they were assessed as part of the planning decision. On the basis of this advice, we were satisfied that the planning application was handled appropriately, although we did make recommendations.

We also considered the communication that Mrs C had with the council, including an acknowledgement of her complaint and their final response. The council's procedure did not specify who should respond to a complaint, and there was no evidence of Mrs C being told who would do so. We considered that it was appropriate, and in line with policy, for the council's response to come from the department involved, and that an independent view on the complaint was best achieved through coming to us. We were, therefore, satisfied that the council handled Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the information on 'loss of outlook' provided to the public, including on their website, to ensure that it gives a clear explanation; and
• remind staff of the importance of keeping records of all calculations undertaken during the assessment of a planning application.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not dealt properly with his application for planning permission. He said that they had unreasonably declined to engage with him and respond to his pre-application enquiry, dealt with this as if it was a planning application for detailed consent (when it was for permission in principle), and that the reply to his complaint wrongly said that they had asked him for drawings of the elevation of his proposed building as part of the assessment of his planning application.

We found that the council had responded to Mr C's pre-application enquiry and, although it might not have met his expectations of engagement with them, it did provide relevant advice. This service is discretionary and it was for the council as planning authority to decide what resources they spent on it. We found nothing to suggest that they had dealt with Mr C's application as if it was for detailed consent rather than in principle. However, it was unclear whether they had given him advice about providing drawings of the elevation of the proposed building, which suggested that their reply had been incorrect, and we upheld this element of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the importance of keeping a record of phone calls they have with customers; and
• review their response to Mr C's complaint about the drawings, and provide either an apology and correction, or details of when and by whom such a request was made.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council removed an oven, hob and laminated flooring from her former tenancy in spite of a council officer having agreed that they would be offered for sale to the new tenant, and that Miss C would remove them if the tenant did not want them. The council said the oven and hob had been taken to the recycling centre, but Miss C disagreed that this had happened and also said that they had thrown out items left outside the property, which she had intended returning to get.

During our investigation the council accepted that there had been a verbal agreement about the hob and oven. They also admitted that they had made a mistake in that, when they were unable to contact the new tenant, they had not told Miss C, and had instead disposed of the items. They explained that the laminate flooring was damaged during the normal course of work and that they had the right to remove it, as Miss C had not done so before returning the keys. They said that the items left outside the house were disposed of after Miss C had returned the keys and stopped paying rent for the property.

We upheld the complaint as the council had not kept to the verbal agreement they had with Miss C. However, as they had already apologised and had decided not to recharge her for the costs incurred when she moved out, we did not find it necessary to make recommendations.

Summary

Ms C was considering making an offer to buy a property and called the council to ask if the property was eligible for a parking permit. When she was told that it was, she asked that they confirm this by email. Ms C received an email shortly afterwards, and instructed her solicitor to submit an offer. She then read the email and discovered that it did not confirm that the property was eligible for a permit. She got in touch with the council, who said that the property was not eligible for a permit, but accepted that she had previously been given incorrect information. Ms C also believed that the council promised her compensation during a phone conversation, but then did not offer this. Ms C complained but the council remained of the view that compensation was not merited.

Ms C complained to us and we reviewed the available recordings of phone conversations. We upheld her complaint that the council had given her incorrect information about the criteria for the issuing of parking permits. However, we found no evidence that she was promised compensation, and did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind all relevant staff of the criteria for the issuing of parking permits.