Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C contacted the council to complain about an elected member. He was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained about this to them. Mr C remained dissatisfied. He complained to us that the council had not dealt reasonably with his phone contact, had not reasonably responded to his complaints and had deliberately included errors in contact details that they supplied to him.

We found that the phone contact had been reasonable and that there was no evidence that the errors in contact details provided were deliberate. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council's response to his complaint was not reasonable, but did not consider that they needed to take any further action in relation to this.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council committee had gone beyond its remit under the council's scheme of delegation. He said that when considering whether to sell or rent out a property, the committee had altered a council officer's proposals and then approved those alterations.

Our investigation concluded that the committee's actions had not gone beyond their remit, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C arranged to have work done to his driveway, which also affected the pavement outside his property. He had contacted the council in September 2011, who wrote back with an informal opinion that the work would be classed as permitted development (meaning that planning permission would not be necessary). However, they went on to explain that if Mr C wanted formal confirmation that it was permitted development, he would have to apply for a certificate of lawfulness. They also explained that he would have to apply for this in any event if the work required a separate type of permit because it affected the public road, which it did. Around two years later, Mr C wanted to go ahead with the work and was unhappy when he learned that a certificate of lawfulness would be required, as he felt that the council’s letter meant this was not the case. He was also unhappy at the level of detail the council wanted him to send them and complained that they had not properly investigated his complaint about the way a council employee spoke to his wife.

After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser explained that the council's requirement for a certificate of lawfulness was common practice in most local authorities. He did not consider the council had acted unreasonably, and indicated that the level of detail the council requested was in keeping with what they reasonably required under planning legislation. Although we considered their letter of September 2011 could have perhaps explained the position more clearly, the evidence indicated that there had been no maladministration.

In terms of the council’s investigation into their employee’s conduct at Mr C’s property, we considered that they could have done little more to investigate this, beyond interviewing Mr C's wife (and possibly the contractor who was on site). We recognised that this had been a long-running stressful matter for Mr C and his wife, but we considered the council’s approach reasonable in the absence of evidence that would have highlighted inaccuracies in their employee's version of events.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had not considered her complaints in line with the social work complaints procedure. Ms C had complained on behalf of her friend (Ms A) about the extent of Ms A’s involvement in the care the council were providing for her aunt (Miss B).

Ms C sent her complaint to the council in May 2013, enclosing a mandate signed by Ms A, authorising Ms C to complain on her behalf. She did not receive a response and wrote to the council again a month later. They responded towards the end of August. Ms C then emailed asking for her complaint to be considered by a complaints review committee (the final stage in the social work complaints procedure). Although the council acknowledged the email, Ms C then had to contact them again before they wrote to her some three weeks later. They explained that they would not be responding to Ms C directly, as Miss B had not appointed her to handle her affairs.

The council told us that they had responded appropriately to Ms C as she did not have the authority to complain on Miss B’s behalf. They also considered it unclear whether she had Ms A’s authority. They did not think that the law and guidance about the social work complaints process allowed either Ms C or Ms A to complain on Miss B’s behalf.

We could consider only the way the council had responded to the complaints Ms C had made on behalf of Ms A, not the underlying concerns she raised. We noted that when Ms C complained she had enclosed Ms A's mandate. Although, in line with the guidance around the social work complaints procedure, the council may not always have to take a third party’s complaint through that process, we considered that they could have responded to Ms C sooner and more clearly to explain their concerns. The paperwork indicated that their first response was sent over three months after she first complained and so, taking everything into account, we took the view that their handling of the matter fell below a reasonable standard.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind social work staff to respond to complaints timeously and, where appropriate, to advise of the steps being taken in response to the complaint; and
• apologise to Ms C for the delay in responding to her complaints.

Summary

Mr C and his family own a number of rented properties. He said that he applied online to renew the registration of the properties rented and jointly owned. Some family members’ applications were approved, and confirmatory emails were received. However, Mr C did not notice that confirmation had not been given for his and another family member’s application, and that payment had not been taken. He thought that this might have been due to the applications being incomplete, and that the council should have noticed this. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to send reminders after the renewal date lapsed, and had charged him a late payment fee.

Landlord Registration is a mandatory registration scheme for all private landlords in Scotland and all local authorities have a statutory duty to deliver this within their areas. The scheme allows councils to establish their own processes to administer the scheme locally, taking into account the primary legislation and associated regulations.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence that the council had received an application from Mr C and had failed to act on it. Although the council did not contact him for some time after the deadline for registration lapsed, the onus to register rested with the applicant, and the late payment fee he was asked to pay was in line with the registration scheme.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the council decided not to investigate his antisocial behaviour complaint beyond making initial enquiries. They said they did this because, under the Antisocial Behaviour Etc (Scotland) Act 2004, for such behaviour to exist it must involve this type of conduct on at least two occasions. In this case, the council thought that the incidents were so closely related that they comprised a single occasion. Mr C disagreed, saying that the instances of antisocial behaviour were separate and amounted to extreme antisocial behaviour.

We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether antisocial behaviour took place as that was a matter for the council – we would only look at how they implemented their antisocial behaviour procedure. Our investigation considered how the complaints were recorded, how the decision on them was taken, and how it was communicated to Mr C. We found that the complaints were recorded on the appropriate database, that the council’s decision took account of the relevant internal procedure and the Act, and that this was communicated to Mr C. This meant that the council had done as they should have and had implemented their procedure reasonably, so we did not uphold the complaint.