Local Government

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.

Summary

When Mr A was refused a street trader's licence, he asked the council for a statement of reasons for the refusal. He then complained about the refusal, the reasons given for refusal and the time taken to provide those reasons. He remained dissatisfied when he received the council's responses and Mr C complained to us on his behalf.

The council argued that various court opinions indicated that the timescale given in legislation for the provision of statements of reasons was not mandatory. We considered the council's argument but decided that the view courts may take in the event of appeals being made to them was not relevant to a complaint about administrative handling. We, therefore, upheld that complaint along with others relating to the council's handling of Mr A's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr A that they did not provide the statement of reasons within ten days;
• apologise to Mr A that they did not respond reasonably to his complaints; and
• remind relevant staff that they should be clear from the start of the investigation stage exactly what matters they will be investigating, and that complaint responses address all the areas that the council is responsible for and explain the reasons for any decisions reached.

Summary

Mr C wanted to buy an area of land behind his property to create a new driveway. The council, however, refused to sell it to him because they believed that any access would impact the status of the green space area concerned. Mr C then complained that land in the same green space had been sold to another residential neighbour and to a utilities company.

We made enquiries with the council and found that their decision to refuse to sell the land was one that they were entitled to make. We also found that they had considered and responded to each of Mr C's concerns. His disagreement with the council's decision was not in itself evidence of maladministration, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that when she agreed to move a smaller new build house, the council told her they would cover the costs of her move under the transfer incentive scheme (TIS). She was then, however, charged much more than she had been led to expect for repairs to her former council property after she moved out. This used up a considerable amount of the money available under the TIS, and so some of the costs with which the council had said they would assist could not be met. She also complained about problems with items in her new home, and about the council's handling of her representations.

During our investigation we were provided with evidence that the council had explained to Miss C that they would assist with the costs of the move up to the maximum allowed under the TIS. They had also explained before the move that they would not be able to meet all of the costs involved. They had, however, offered to exceed the budget allowed under the TIS to meet the costs of new laminate flooring, but Miss C did not accept this offer. The council confirmed that there was no money available within the new financial year to meet the costs of floor coverings. They also provided details of the repairs required to Miss C's former property.

During our investigation the council took action to replumb Miss C's washing machine and to install a rotary dryer at her new property. They confirmed that a number of other issues had been identified relating to the new build houses and that the developer would address these. We were, therefore, satisfied that the council had responded to Miss C and addressed her concerns, in line with their complaints process. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints, although we made recommendations as we were concerned that administrative omissions meant that not all the information about what happened was available, including that there was no written record of their extensive communication with Miss C by phone and during meetings.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the need to ensure that the pre-transfer form is signed by the tenant prior to the transfer;
• consider keeping a written record of any phone call or meeting with a tenant where a decision/agreement is reached; and
• ensure that when a repair is cancelled a record of the reason for the cancellation is recorded.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that a survey they had undertaken about the introduction and location of glass recycling banks at the apartment blocks he lives in was not carried out in line with their plan for local involvement. The council told him that they considered the consultation had met the terms of the plan.

Mr C was dissatisfied and complained to us. The council's plan said that three weeks would be given for individuals to respond to surveys, but only two weeks had been given in this case. The plan also said that relevant groups would be consulted, but the residents' association for the apartment blocks were not consulted. The council said that they did not consider this necessary as all residents were sent surveys to complete. However, the council provided no evidence to indicate that this, or any aspect of the local involvement plan, was considered before undertaking the survey. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that consultations should be carried out in line with the local involvement plan;
• put up signage on the glass recycling banks asking that glass only be deposited within specific hours of operation; and
• deliver information to each property in the apartment blocks, giving details of the hours of operation of the glass recycling bank.