Local Government

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the council's lack of action in dealing with three large trees outside his home, which he said were not only dangerous, but also overhung his garden. Mr C also said that the trees, which had broken branches hanging from them, had caused damage to cars in his driveway. Mr C reported the matter to the council in January 2013 and again in October 2013. In December 2013 he was told this would be dealt with as an emergency and a council representative called at his home in January 2014 to look at the trees. As the work had still not been undertaken in June 2014 he again contacted the council. He told us in August 2014 that the trees had still not been trimmed.

We found that a works order was put in place with effect from October 2013 with a completion date of October 2014 so, technically, the council still had time to complete the work by their target. However, we found that they did not tell Mr C what that target date was. This failure to pass on information led to Mr C's belief that there was a delay and, for that reason, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to tell him the target date for work to be carried out on the trees;
• take steps to ensure that the work is completed by the target date; and
• remind staff in the arboricultural team of the importance of logging visits and phone calls.

ummary

Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably assess his and his wife (Mrs C)'s income and expenditure when determining their entitlement to a discretionary housing payment (DHP). He complained that the income and expenditure figures on the application form had been tampered with without his permission. He said some of the expenditure figures had been ignored completely and the council failed to ask him for further proof of the figures he submitted. Mr C also said the council's figures did not give a true level of monthly expenditure for food, heating and clothing.

The Department of Work and Pensions guidance says that it is for a council to decide whether they provide applicants with financial assistance with their housing costs and how they treat an applicant's income or expenditure when doing so. The overriding principle is that a council should act reasonably. The evidence showed that the council converted Mr and Mrs C's monthly income and expenditure figures to weekly figures - which we found reasonable. In the instances where the council's figures differed from Mr and Mrs C's, there was documentary evidence to show that the figures the council used were accurate.

The evidence also showed that the council disregarded £100 per month that Mr C listed for personal items. It was for the council to decide how they treated an applicant's income or expenditure when assessing their entitlement to DHP, and we did not consider their reason for disregarding the £100 to be unreasonable.

In their reconsideration process, the council had advised Mr C to include any special factors or items of essential expenditure that he thought they had not taken fully into account. This was Mr C's opportunity to explain the figures he submitted for heating, clothing, food and personal items. Mr C did not appear to provide any information on special factors in these areas to support his case. The fact that the council did not ask for supporting documentary evidence did not, in our view, have an adverse effect on their consideration of this. The evidence also showed that the council acted in accordance with their guidance for expenditure on food, heating and clothing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, in future, where their income and expenditure figures differ from an applicant's, they explain their reasons for this in their DHP claim decision letters.

Summary

Mrs C is the secretary of a group that used a local community facility. The council decided to use some of the space there for their staff and sought a principal tenant for the remaining space. It was planned that the tenant would manage the use of the community space to ensure that other local groups could continue to use it. Mrs C told us that the council had not consulted appropriately and so had failed to involve the local community and tell them about decisions on the future management of the facility. She also complained that the council had not made the local community aware of the process to become the principal tenant.

During our investigation, we found that the council had considered carrying out a consultation and had decided it was unnecessary. We found that there were no policies or procedures that they were expected to follow for this, and that they were entitled to use their judgment to make the decision. We noted that they had developed a new framework for staff to help them with consultations, including deciding when to consult. Although we did not uphold the complaints, we were critical that the council did not erect a To Let sign at the facility. We also considered that the property marketing material could have been sent to respondents of a previous community engagement exercise but, overall, we were satisfied that the council acted reasonably.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with a time-frame for the implementation of the new consultation framework; and
• consider developing a procedure for the future marketing of the community space.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council installed an unsuitable extractor fan in his house. He was concerned that it was designed to be left on 24 hours a day and that he was responsible for the running costs. When he switched the fan off, he found that there was a draught from the duct, and was unhappy that the fan did not have filters, which he believed should have been fitted when it was installed.

We found that the fan was installed as part of a refurbishment programme for multi-storey buildings involving comprehensive recladding and insulation. Due to the techniques used to provide sealed 'air-tightness' and controlled ventilation, fans were installed to allow the building to breathe. The manufacturer's technical guidance showed that a filter was not required, given the way the fan was to be used, and that if it was used continuously as designed there would be no problem with draughts. Estimated running costs were extremely low and the council said Mr C would recover these through energy savings because of the insulation and other works carried out. We found this reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about planning permission granted for an area of ground behind his house. He said that in determining the permission, the council relied on incorrect information and allowed a building to be erected that overlooked his house. He said that the council had dealt inconsistently with this application, and a site visit should have been made so that officers would have better understood the implications of the development on his home. He said that his complaints to the council about these matters had not been handled properly.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that while certain incorrect information had been reported in a council document, the responsibility for ensuring its accuracy lay with the developer and not with the council. Despite this, we found that the planning application was determined on its merits and, while a site visit was not mandatory, it was likely that one had been made. There was no evidence to suggest that the council had dealt inconsistently with this matter in comparison to its normal decision-making process and, indeed, it seemed that the council had gone further than necessary in considering the water management implications of the application. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to cut back trees outside her property. Ms C told us the trees were overhanging her house to the extent that they were nearly touching her roof. Ms C said her television reception had been affected, and she was living in constant darkness on the side of her house facing the trees, which meant she had stopped using her living room due to the lack of natural light. Ms C said her roof was black with moss from the trees, and she had to clean up leaves and bird droppings regularly.

We found that the council had told Ms C the trees would be dealt with; however, nearly a year later, the work had not been carried out. The council said there was a breakdown in communication between work teams, which led to confusion between shifts and, as a result, there was a delay in the work being started. We upheld Ms C's complaint as it was unacceptable that the work had not been carried out.

In our recommendations to the council, we had asked them to arrange for Ms C's roof to be cleaned. The council refused, and so we asked them to make her a goodwill payment of £100 to Ms C instead. The council again refused. Their reason, in both instances, was that payment or any works other than the actual tree works was disproportionate to their failure to deal with the trees. We were disappointed by the council's intransigence as, in our view, it was entirely reasonable for the council to make a tangible expression of regret, in line with our office's guidance on apology, given the effect that their very poor service had on Ms C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for failing to deal with the trees outside her property;
• provide Ms C, in writing, with a date for the work to be carried out on the trees, and copy that communication to us;
• draw up an action plan to ensure that such delays do not happen again, and copy the action plan to us.

Summary

Mr C had lived close to a semi-industrial property for a number of years without problems, but more recently the owners of the property had sought to diversify and to develop the site and their business. Work started on the site but without the necessary planning permission. Mr C and his neighbours complained to the council about this and about the noise coming from the site, and the council told the developer that he needed to obtain planning permission.

The developer took five months to make a retrospective application and meanwhile noise complaints continued. Although the council had a target to consider the application within two months, it took them nine months to do so. The application was then refused by a committee of councillors. Throughout this time Mr C had been complaining of noise and disturbance in his home.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation showed that while council officers were encouraged to support small businesses, they also had obligations to the wider public. In this case, there was no doubt that works had been undertaken without the necessary planning permission and that noise was affecting those who lived nearby. While the council advised the developer of this, they allowed him too long before he submitted his retrospective application. Although it was clear that during this time they were negotiating with the developer to mitigate the noise, matters took too long to resolve. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology to Mr C for their failures in this matter;
• ensure that officers involved in this case are made aware of our decision;
• make a further formal apology for the failures identified; and
• ensure that appropriate officers are informed of the circumstances and outcome of this complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out repairs to prevent water coming into Mr A's council house. Ms C said that Mr A contacted the council many times about this and the council had failed to permanently resolve the situation.

Our investigation considered the council's policy on water ingress and whether they followed it. The policy said that for top floor flats such as Mr A's they would arrange a temporary roof repair to ensure the home was wind and watertight. The council indicated that, in such cases, temporary repairs should be carried out within one day.

The evidence showed that on eight separate occasions the council were advised of water ingress problems at Mr A's property. On two of these, they arranged repairs in accordance with their policy. However, on the remaining six, the evidence suggested that no temporary repairs were completed. We acknowledged that, during that time, the council organised more permanent repairs for the roof, but this did not remove the requirement for them to carry out temporary repairs to make Mr A's home watertight. Given the number of times Mr A reported the same issues, we also found that the council failed to identify the problem and to take appropriate action earlier.

We were also concerned that in their response to Ms C's complaint the council said they were not aware of a recent problem, when their records clearly showed that this had been reported to them no fewer than seven times. We were, therefore, critical of the council's failure to investigate Ms C's complaint properly.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on this case to the staff involved to prevent such failings occurring in future;
• review Mr A's compensation claim in light of their acknowledgement that they had previously failed to review their repairs system properly in this case and carry out sufficient repairs to rectify the water ingress problem and advise Mr A of the outcome; and
• provide Mr A with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to deal reasonably with her planning application for a new driveway and her application for dropped kerb access. The council said that they had explained to Ms C what her rights were in respect of parking, and had clearly told her what she needed to do to obtain these permissions. They said that they worked with her at all stages to try and assist her through this process.

We found that the council had had a great deal of contact with Ms C and had provided her with clear advice on what she would have to do to get consent. As we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a Member of Parliament, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about a fine Mr A received for driving in a bus lane. Mr A was dissatisfied that he did not receive the initial penalty charge notice, and, therefore, was unaware that he had been fined. He said that when he did find out about it, when a charge certificate was sent to his home address, a surcharge had been applied and the council refused him his right of appeal as they had not received it within the prescribed time limit. Mr C told the council that Mr A did not dispute the offence, but was concerned that he had not received the original charge notice allowing him the opportunity to appeal and pay the lower charge. Mr C said that the council had not replied to two emails Mr A sent them about this.

The council said that there were no procedural errors in the handling of the charge notice, but offered Mr A the opportunity to pay the reduced charge which he subsequently paid.

We acknowledged that Mr A tried on two separate occasions to raise concerns about not receiving the charge notice, but we found that he had not used the correct email address. We did not identify any failings by the council in processing the charge notice, and, on balance, considered that they had acted reasonably in offering Mr A the opportunity to pay the reduced charge.