Local Government

Summary

Mr C had written to the council to ask if a condition of planning approval had been purified (agreed to have been discharged) by their planning department. Under the council's planning enforcement charter he was entitled to a formal response within ten working days, but he did not receive this. When he wrote again this email was also ignored. Mr C then complained to the council and received their final response which signposted him to us. He then complained that the council did not respond in good time to his concerns about a possible breach of planning control at a neighbouring property.

The council told us that they did not send a formal response as Mr C had met one of their officers at a council office (although Mr C said that this was while on other business). We decided, however, that they should have formally responded to his enquiry, in line with their charter. We upheld his complaint and were also critical of the council's complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation;
• remind staff that the model complaints handling procedure from our Complaints Standards Authority requires them to clearly communicate the outcome of an investigation to the customer; and
• demonstrate to us that action has been taken to resolve the discrepancy between the response time stated in the charter and the one stated in their automated acknowledgement email.

Summary

Mrs C claimed compensation from the council because she said there was damage to her home when a new central heating system was installed. Her claim was rejected, and she complained that the work was not carried out competently and was five months late. She said she had to redecorate extensively and replace floor coverings as a result of the installation. Mrs C also said that she was left without heating and hot water when the new system broke down shortly after installation.

Our investigation found no evidence of a five month delay, although there was information confirming that Mrs C was alerted to the start of the works and that she had been advised not to re-decorate. The replacement heating system was installed over a four-day period but the boiler was found to be faulty. As it was under guarantee the contractors reported this to the manufacturer for attention and, meanwhile, Mrs C was offered the use of heaters. Uneven floor boards and other general repairs that Mrs C reported were carried out. Otherwise, there was no evidence that the works carried out at her home were more disruptive than could have been anticipated.

Summary

Planning consent granted in 2002 required a developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in the area, and at first residents were given free parking permits. When, some ten years later, the council then started to charge residents for their permits, Mr C complained. He said that before the CPZ began to operate residents were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits as a result of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic resulting from the development. The council explained that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered a ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free as the costs associated with the CPZ were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from residents.

There was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely. However, we found no evidence of such a promise having been made. The available evidence indicated that the council's primary concern during the planning process was to secure funding for the new CPZ through a legal agreement with the developer. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who considered that it would have been inappropriate to attach a longer timescale than ten years to the agreement, and so we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to seek to recover costs after the ten year period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ and was publicised at the time included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges if necessary in the future. Mr C also raised concerns about the method the council used to introduce the charges. However, we found that his dispute with them about this was based upon a legal interpretation on which we could not comment.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council's environmental health department about an out-of-date food product he had bought in a supermarket. He was unhappy with the way the council handled this, and complained to us of delay and failure to deal with his complaint properly and fully.

Our investigation found that there had been an initial delay, and the council had not responded within two working days - the timescale required under their complaints handling procedure. However, in their investigation the council acknowledged this and had already apologised to Mr C for it. We found that their investigation into the food safety issue was thorough and followed council procedures and relevant legislation, and that they had sent Mr C a detailed decision letter. Overall, we did not find evidence of unreasonable delay. Our investigation did, however, find that they had not responded fully to Mr C's further representations, including that they notified the supermarket of their decision before telling Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer a formal apology to Mr C for failing to address all of his points fully; and
• review their practices on the timing of informing parties of the decision taken by the council with regard to complaints about food safety issues.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed their tendering process when undertaking a public works project. She said that work had been given to another person which should have been given to her company. She said the council wanted the project to be a voluntary/community-led project and she disagreed with that view and was then excluded by the council from the decision-making process.

We found that at a meeting with council staff and others, Ms C had agreed that an independent consultation should be undertaken to gauge support for the project and consider the most appropriate body to take it forward. We also found that the independent community consultation was done in accordance with the council's procurement guidelines. In light of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's children had been placed on the child protection register, and she complained that the head teacher at her son's school had made unsubstantiated allegations to the council's social work department about her parenting ability. Mrs C also complained that the head teacher had unreasonably failed to ask for the social work department's record to be corrected, despite later claiming that her remarks about the situation had been recorded inaccurately. The head teacher had also refused to meet with Mrs C to discuss her complaint.

The council said that as the head teacher disputed the accuracy of the records and as she had not had the opportunity to view them before Mrs C complained, the council did not consider them accurate. They said, however, that the remarks were not the substantive reason for placing Mrs C's children on the register. The council's investigation found that the head teacher's decision not to meet with Mrs C was based on advice from senior colleagues in the education department. The council also said that due to the personal nature of Mrs C's correspondence, the education department had been preparing to deal with the matter as a formal complaint, but this was overtaken by events, when Mrs C formalised her complaints. They said they recognised that it was inappropriate for formal records of conversations not to be agreed by all parties, and so they had taken steps to improve inter-department communication. They were, however, unable to share with Mrs C any details of actions taken in respect of the head teacher.

Our investigation found that it was not possible to determine the accuracy of the record, as it was disputed by the head teacher. The evidence did, however, show that the head teacher's remarks were not the reason that the children were placed on the register. We found that the education department had failed to request that the record be amended, despite being aware that the head teacher disputed the remarks attributed to her, and that child protection proceedings were underway. We also found that, although the council should have told Mrs C why the head teacher would not meet with her, the decision not to do so was one that the head teacher was entitled to make, and was not something that we could look at.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider adding an addendum to the social work department file to confirm the head teacher disputes the statements attributed to her; and
• apologise for the failure to correct the social work department record at the earliest available opportunity.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how her child's primary school dealt with an incident involving her child and a teacher. She said that the school had not communicated appropriately with her as a parent and that she had been unaware of what was upsetting her child and why they were reluctant to go to school. She complained to the council that she was not told about the incident, was not involved in a meeting with her child and school staff, and did not receive a full response from the school.

Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Mrs C, the school and the council. We also reviewed the records of the school's investigation and the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint, after which we upheld her complaints. We found that, given the seriousness of the complaints made by her child, Mrs C should have been included and involved in discussions. We also found that the council's record of the handling of her complaint did not match the response she received, so we made recommendations to the council about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and and her child that she was not informed and involved when the incident occurred; and
• remind relevant staff to ensure that complaints are clearly set out and responses clearly relate to agreed complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the level of support and help that school staff provided to his child, who had additional support needs as well as other disorders. Mr C also said that staff (who he said were not properly trained) had inappropriately restrained his child, and that had adequate support been in place, events could have been avoided. He was particularly unhappy with the handling of one specific incident. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to reasonably investigate and respond to his concerns.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that staff had used physical restraint on one occasion when staff at the school assessed that the child was a danger to themselves and to others, and the council said minimum force was used. We recognised that this had been an extremely stressful and upsetting situation, but found no evidence that school staff had failed to act in line with the risk assessment in place. We also found no evidence to support Mr C's position that physical restraint was used on a number of occasions. The council were satisfied that, prior to the child's needs escalating, staff had been sufficiently trained to meet those needs and had put support in place to do that. We were satisfied that the school responded appropriately to the incidents Mr C complained about and that as a result of the complaint the council had carried out several reviews and used his child's case to highlight learning and improve practice. We were also satisfied that the council had carried out a detailed investigation into Mr C's concerns and had provided reasonable responses to the points he raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider their current procedures to decide whether incident reports should be shared with parents.

Summary

Mr C complained that, when he bought a property to let, the council had unreasonably decided that he did not qualify for exemption of council tax for an empty dwelling. He said he had carried out substantial work, including replacing the kitchen and bathroom, rewiring and redecoration, which should have made the property eligible for the exemption for the duration of the upgrading work. The council investigated his complaints and found that, because the previous owner had received a discount for a second home on the property, the property did not qualify for exemption as an empty dwelling as it had not been continuously occupied for three months before he bought it.

Our investigation considered his correspondence with the council, relevant legislation and amendments relating to council tax and empty dwellings, and the council's responses. We found that the council had taken appropriate actions in line with legislation and that their responses to his complaints explained the legislation and the changes relating to their decisions.

Summary

Mr C was given notice to quit his rented accommodation, so he contacted the council about alternative housing. They assessed him as being involuntarily homeless. Mr C told the council that he had health issues that meant his accommodation needed certain kinds of fixtures and furnishings and that he could not share accommodation. The council, however, told him that they required a medical opinion supporting this before they would offer him only accommodation meeting these criteria. Mr C was offered various properties over the following twelve months before he accepted a temporary accommodation and, soon after, a permanent accommodation. He complained to the council that the accommodation he had been offered was unreasonable given his health issues. The council responded that they had not received any medical opinion that indicated the offers had been unreasonable. Mr C brought his complaints to us.

We found that Mr C had not supplied the council with any medical evidence that supported his views about what sort of accommodation was suitable. Given this, we decided that the council's offers were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaints. However, we did note that the council had not responded to a complaint specifically about the temporary accommodation even though they had considered and investigated it, and we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind all relevant staff of the importance of responding to all matters raised and investigated as complaints.