Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C obtained planning permission to build a house and garage. After construction work began, a neighbouring property owner complained, and the council's planning enforcement officer made a site visit. The officer considered that there was a breach of one of the conditions of the planning consent, which required landscaping plans to be submitted before work started on the site. He also found that the building was not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, potentially leading to an unacceptable increase in the overall height of the finished building. He advised the builders to cease work, then issued a temporary stop notice requiring all work to stop pending submission and approval of the required landscaping plans. The plans were later submitted and approved, and work recommenced, but Mr C encountered further delays when he was told that he would need approval from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for his proposed drainage system. Mr C complained that the council were heavy-handed in their approach to planning enforcement and did not work with him to resolve the problems on site.

We found that the council did not take formal enforcement action against Mr C's development. However, they did take reasonable steps to halt work on site to ensure that an acceptable building was being constructed. Although we were satisfied with their approach to planning enforcement, we were critical of their communication with Mr C. We found no evidence to suggest they consulted with him to check that parties were working to the correct set of plans. We also found that the council raised enforcement issues in a piecemeal fashion rather than providing Mr C with a comprehensive assessment of the development against what they considered acceptable. Finally, we found evidence of inadequate communication between the council's planning and building control services. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• conduct a review of their handling of Mr C's project with a view to identifying ways of improving communication between planning and building control and with applicants; and
• consider providing information regarding the need to consult with SEPA on planning decisions relating to developments using septic tanks and soakaways (gravel-filled channels or pits that help manage surface water).

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not address or adequately handle his complaints about antisocial behaviour and noise pollution involving neighbours who were council tenants.

At the start of our investigation the council explained that although they had investigated Mr C's complaint, he had not made a formal complaint through their complaints handling procedure. We considered, however, that the council should have applied their complaints handling procedure in the first instance.

In investigating Mr C's complaint about noise pollution, we found that the council had followed the relevant procedures and had dealt with this reasonably, and we did not uphold his complaint. The council's investigation found that the building predated the relevant building regulation and that there was an issue with sound insulation. Although there was no requirement to bring the sound insulation up to modern-day standards, the council agreed to do so, and to share the costs with Mr C. Various options were still being considered when Mr C brought his complaints to us.

In relation to other antisocial behaviour that Mr C complained about, however, which included graffiti on his property, alleged illegal activity and accumulation of rubbish in the garden, we found that the council had not taken reasonable steps to address his concerns. We upheld his complaint, as we were not satisfied that the process for dealing with rubbish had been followed as, although a verbal warning had been given to his neighbour, there was no written warning as detailed in the council procedure. We also did not consider that they had explained their procedure on graffiti to Mr C or advised him to contact the police in relation to alleged criminal behaviour, although we did find that they had recommended he contact the police in relation to any breach of the peace that took place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider taking further action to address the noise transference issue if the agreed works are judged to be unsuccessful;
• take steps to raise awareness of their complaints handling procedure, particularly the definition of a complaint, with the relevant service area staff;
• record Mr C's complaint and provide an apology for failing to use the proper complaints handling procedure in the first instance; and
• apologise to Mr C for their failure to fully address all his concerns about antisocial behaviour and provide him with an assurance that their estates management framework, which includes their procedures for addressing antisocial behaviour, will be followed as appropriate in future.

Summary

Mrs C, a private homeowner, complained to the council about a fence that they put up at her neighbour’s property. She complained that they had not consulted her about this, and her door now faced a six-foot fence. She had suggested other options that would not have impacted upon her, but said the council refused to consider these and had not responded adequately to her complaints. The council apologised for not involving her in discussions before they put the fence up and explained why they thought her suggestions were not practicable. Our investigation upheld Mrs C's complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised for not consulting her about the fence, we did not make a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delays in responding to her complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the council handled work that would possibly reroute sewerage infrastructure through her garden. The work was to be done as part of the council’s flood defence programme, which was originally the subject of public consultation.

The original plans had a minimal effect on Mrs C, but in 2010 the main contractor showed her a copy of a revised plan, which indicated that a new sewer was to be laid under her and her neighbour's gardens. This was the first Mrs C or her neighbour knew of the change. She was concerned that the new sewer would have significant consequences for her property and complained to the council. The council maintained that the flood prevention scheme was empowered by the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, which they said gave them the power to amend or deviate from (within a certain tolerance) the original plans without further consultation or provision of information to those affected. Considerable correspondence and meetings between the council, Mrs C, her neighbour, the design engineers, and the constructors ensued, ending in a meeting in March 2011. Mrs C and her neighbour considered that negotiations were ongoing at this stage as there were several action points from the meeting about further consultation or information to be provided to them. The next communication Mrs C received from the council was a formal 'Notice to Proceed' with the revised plans three weeks later.

At this point Mrs C felt that she had no option but to seek legal advice. After correspondence between her solicitor, the council and Scottish Water (who did not agree with the council's view) a compromise was reached that the new sewer would not be routed through the gardens. Mrs C then asked the council to reimburse her legal fees, but they refused.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, focused only on consultation with and provision of information to those affected by the scheme, rather than the legal views of the various parties. We considered that it would have been reasonable for the council to have consulted with, or at least told, Mrs C at the point when the plans changed so radically. We were also disappointed that the council were giving mixed messages when they were corresponding and meeting with Mrs C and her neighbour in March 2011, but then without further warning issued the Notice to Proceed.

On this basis we considered that it was reasonable for Mrs C to feel that she had no option but to take legal advice, and that the direct intervention of her solicitor led to the compromise finally agreed. For this reason we took the unusual step of recommending financial redress for the reimbursement of Mrs C's legal fees.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failings identified; and
• reimburse Mrs C's legal fees, following production to the council of confirmation of the fees directly incurred in relation to the maladministration and service failure identified during our investigation.