Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of enquiries he had made to them about the prospect of developing a plot of land he had purchased. In particular, he was concerned that the council had released his private email address and information to a councillor and a third party. He also said that the planning officer he had spoken to had acted incorrectly in giving pre-application advice; the council had not acted in an open and transparent way during a phone call about a proposal to place a tree preservation order (TPO) on a tree on the land; and that their action in placing a TPO on the tree was unreasonable.

During our investigation we found no evidence to support Mr C's allegation that the council released his private email address or information to a councillor or third party. We were also satisfied that the planning officer acted correctly in relation to the advice offered. We did, however, take the view that it would have been helpful had the officer clarified that Mr C had the right to submit a planning application and obtain a formal decision from the planning authority.

There was no evidence to support Mr C's concern that a member of staff did not act in an open and transparent manner during a phone conversation about the TPO. We also found that members of the public had written to the council requesting that a TPO be placed on the tree, and that it was appropriate for the council to take the action they did in putting a TPO in place. We were also satisfied that the TPO request was considered under the council's evaluation criteria. However, we did find that some of the terminology used did not reflect current TPO regulations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider explaining in standard responses to pre-application enquiries that a definitive decision on any proposal could only be obtained by submitting a planning application to the authority; and
• ensure the terms used to describe the TPO process reflected the current TPO regulations.

Summary

Ms C had council tax arrears, and had made arrangements (with sheriff officers acting for the council) to clear these. She told us that she had not disputed the arrears but when she was interested in buying her home and asked the council to issue her with a right to buy certificate, they had unreasonably declined to do so because she had uncollected council tax arrears. However, she had an invoice from the sheriff officers saying that her account for the period in dispute was clear. She told us that the information from the council about her council tax account was inconsistent and inaccurate; and that the council unreasonably expected her to keep payment receipts for 20 years.

We were provided with only limited evidence from both Ms C and the council, but the council confirmed that in 2010 a request from solicitors acting for Ms C for a right to buy certificate was declined on that basis. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint about this because the council’s records showed that her account was in arrears in 2013. However, our investigation found a disparity in the information that sheriff officers acting for the council had given Ms C, and that provided by the council. The council have a duty in law to collect council tax, and we found nothing restricting them from taking steps to collect old debts. However, as it was unclear what arrears were outstanding in recent years, we upheld this point of complaint and made recommendations. It was too late for us to investigate actions taken 20 years ago, and we explained to Ms C that we could not consider events from that time.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to include an enquiry to their debt management partners about the balance of arrears on a customer's council tax account before responding to an enquiry or complaint related to such an account;
• put Ms C's account on hold while further investigation is undertaken into the transactions undertaken on her council tax accounts through sheriff officers, and provide both her and the Ombudsman with documentation which confirms how their findings about the balance on her accounts was arrived at;
• waive any statutory penalties that have not been levied correctly; and
• formally apologise to Ms C.

Summary

When Mr C bought his home, the road outside had a number of speed cushions to slow down traffic. Some years later, the council decided that the road needed to be resurfaced. When they checked the condition of the speed cushions, they found that these had deteriorated and could not be reused. In the months immediately following the resurfacing, temporary vehicle activated speed signs were installed, and speeds and traffic volumes were monitored. The council then consulted on the re-introduction of traffic calming measures, but found that there was significant opposition to their specific proposals. Knowing the range of public opinion, senior roads officers met with local councillors and agreed a revised scheme with fewer speed cushions. At the time, they obtained legal advice that they did not need to consult again on the revised proposals, and the new traffic calming measures were installed.

Mr C was not living in the property when this happened, and when he returned he found that traffic volume and speeds had increased, and there was excessive noise in his home. He complained to the council about the changes, and made various information requests. He then complained to us that the council had not taken the appropriate steps when considering and implementing the new measures, and had failed to act on collected data which indicated that the measures that they had put in place were inadequate.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as our investigation found that the consultation was extensive and appropriate. We also found that since the measures were introduced, council officers had examined the results of two further monitoring exercises and found no reason to amend the scheme. This was a decision for them to take as professionals, and not something that we could consider where there was no evidence of maladministration in the taking of the decision.

Summary

Mr C built a driveway at his property, which is at a junction, but was told by the council that he should not use the pedestrian dropped kerb there as access. As a result Mr C then applied for permission to construct an additional vehicular access away from the junction and requested that the council carry out work to drop the kerb. He then complained about the treatment he received from the council regarding the new driveway he had constructed at the junction and his dropped kerb application. He felt that the council had imposed inappropriate conditions on the consent for the dropped kerb application. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that there had been a considerable amount of correspondence with the council on the matter and Mr C had gained the impression that the council had changed the conditions. However, based on the available evidence we were satisfied that the council had explained why the works they outlined were required and we did not uphold that complaint. We did uphold his complaint about complaints handling, as we found that the council had (in line with their complaints procedure) escalated Mr C's complaint straight to stage two of their process. They had not, however, told him about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that customers need to be informed as early as possible if their complaint is being escalated straight to stage two of their complaints process, and ensure they are notified of their right to complain to the SPSO;
• remind staff of the need to consider whether a customer should be contacted to discuss their complaint at stage two of the complaints process; and
• apologise to Mr C for their handling of his complaint.

Summary

Ms C was registered with the council as homeless and was placed in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. She was unhappy with the standard of the accommodation and visited the council to complain as well as speaking to council officers on the phone. She said the accommodation was dirty and that the gas boiler was unsafe. She alleged residents were locked in at night and that a fellow resident was on a methadone programme. When she complained to us she told us that she was particularly unhappy that the council contacted the landlord following her complaint. She believed this allowed the landlord to make improvements to the property before the council inspected it. She said that this meant that, when inspected, the property was not in the condition it was when she stayed in it, and so ensured that her complaint was not upheld.

The council said that the landlord had shown them the appropriate safety certificates for the property and that it had passed an unannounced inspection. They had also been shown invoices for professional cleaning companies for both the interior of the property and the bed linen that was provided to Ms C. They acknowledged that the type of accommodation was not ideal, but said that on the date of Ms C's application it was the only accommodation they had available. They recognised homelessness was stressful for the individuals affected, and said staff had been reminded of the need to take the impact of homelessness into account when dealing with members of the public.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had phoned the manager of the accommodation due to Ms C’s concerns about not just the property, but also her fellow residents. They had told her when she visited the council offices that this would happen, before she had made a formal complaint. We found the council had investigated Ms C’s concerns appropriately and taken all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the property was safe and in an appropriate condition. They provided us with photographic evidence from their inspection to support this. We also found that, since Ms C’s complaint, they had recruited additional staff to their homelessness unit and increased the frequency of their inspections of temporary accommodation.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about unauthorised development activity at a property close to his. A retrospective planning application was submitted and recommended for approval, but was refused by the planning committee. Mr C complained to the council about various aspects of their handling of these matters, and when he was dissatisfied with the response he received he complained to us. We decided that most of his complaints were not matters we could consider as they related to his unhappiness with the council's actions rather than being complaints of maladministration or service failure (ie complaints that the council had handled this wrongly).

We did consider his complaint that the council's complaints handling was unreasonable because the chief executive did not provide specific evidence to support his statements about meetings held or the consideration given to the matter. We did not, however, uphold this, as we found that the chief executive responded directly to Mr C's complaints and gave reasons for his decisions, which we considered reasonable.

Summary

Mrs and Ms C told us that they registered for the council’s downsizing incentive scheme when it was first introduced, as they no longer needed a three bedroom house. (This was a scheme where tenants were offered a cash payment if they moved to a smaller house.) When they were offered their current property in June 2013 they expected to receive a payment and were shocked to be told that the scheme had ended. An article later appeared in the local press referring to the scheme ‘continuing’ because it had been a success.

Mrs and Ms C complained to the council. They said they felt penalised and discriminated against because they moved during a period when the council said the scheme was not in place. Mrs and Ms C said that had they known that it was to be continued later they could have made a more informed decision about moving house. In reply, the council said that the scheme ended on 31 March 2013 as there was no new money to keep it going. However, new funding later became available and officers decided to seek approval to introduce a new scheme. This was approved in September 2013 and the scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013. Mrs and Ms C then complained to us that the council unreasonably refused to make them a downsizing incentive payment when they moved, and did not reply to their correspondence within the published time limits for doing so.

When we investigated, the council told us that information about the scheme was available on the internet and on posters in council offices. Funding was made available for it on an annual basis, and it was suspended from 31 March 2013 because it could not be funded again at that time. We did not find any service failure or maladministration in the council's decision to suspend the scheme. This was a decision that they were entitled to make and as the scheme was suspended at the time Mrs and Ms C took up the new tenancy, the council’s decision not to make an incentive award was correct.

We understood, however, why Mrs and Ms C felt so aggrieved, and we were concerned that the council did not keep them, or other tenants who had applied for the scheme, directly informed about amendments to it. We also noted an inconsistency of language on the part of the council when referring to the scheme's status. We found no evidence at all of any correspondence with Mrs and Ms C on this matter, or that it was discussed with them when they were offered their current property. We upheld the complaint about the failure to respond, and took the view that putting information on the internet, or on posters in council offices was not sufficient in this case, especially as there must have been only a very limited number of tenants involved. We, therefore, made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their decision not to make a downsizing payment to Mrs and Ms C in view of their failure to keep them informed of the changes made to the scheme; and
• review their procedures and put in place measures to ensure that tenants are kept better informed in any future amendments to the scheme or any similar initiatives.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C objected to planning applications for a wind farm near their home. They then complained to the council that the planning service had not given appropriate consideration to the potential resulting impact on their amenity (enjoyment of their property or surroundings) from the wind turbines. Mr and Mrs C expressed particular concerns relating to the land they use for recreational activities as part of their property.

The council explained that they had given appropriate consideration to protecting Mr and Mrs C’s amenity and that the land in question, although owned by Mr and Mrs C, did not appear, on the balance of probability, to have a lawful use as domestic curtilage (the essential garden ground for the property).

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the actions taken by the council were in line with relevant guidance and that their response to Mr and Mrs C’s concerns was reasonable. We also found that it was reasonable that the council did not consider Mr and Mrs C’s land’s use as amenity ground when considering a planning application for the wind farm.

Summary

Mr C's property was included in the council's housing improvement programme, which involved comprehensive works. Mr C became unhappy after work started on his home, and following a Freedom of Information request about the programme, he complained that the contract was being undertaken in-house, without going out to tender. As part of his complaint, he asked that his concerns about this were brought to the attention of council members. Mr C also complained that he had not been consulted in advance about the proposed work in accordance with the council's Tenant Handbook.

Our investigation found that the requirement for the council to go out to compulsory competitive tendering had ended in 2003, and the decision became a delegated matter. The programme had been approved by the full council and the decision that the refurbishment works would not be put out to tender was made by the Head of Service under delegated powers. We did not find anything to suggest that the council's advice about this to Mr C in response to his complaint was incorrect, nor that there was a requirement to bring his concerns to the attention of council members. However, we saw no evidence that his request for this to be done had been responded to, and we made a relevant recommendation.

With regard to Mr C's complaint about lack of consultation, the council acknowledged that their Tenant Handbook did say that individual tenants would be consulted about the programme. However, this was not done because it was not considered appropriate. The council provided evidence that confirmed that a range of methods had been used to provide tenants with advice about what would happen and when. However, because it was unclear how the decision not to carry out individual consultation was arrived at, we were unable to conclude that it had been taken appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reply to Mr C about his request that council members were made aware of his concerns about tendering for the housing improvement programme; and
• consider Mr C's comments about consultation as part of a procedural review.

Summary

Mr C represented a number of people at a planning appeal hearing after the council issued a planning enforcement notice about advertising hoardings that they said had been erected without permission. He said that as part of that hearing, the council deliberately misled the Scottish Government's Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals with regard to the number of enforcement notices served, and also about their own policy on the sponsorship of roundabouts. He thought that this incorrect information may well have prejudiced the outcome for his clients.

During our investigation, we obtained independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers. The investigation found that while internal email exchanges were confusing and conflicting about the number of enforcement notices served, there was no evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead, as Mr C had suggested. We accepted that the emails concerned represented council officers' reflections in the aftermath of the planning hearing but before a decision had been given. They were not intended to contradict the council's formal position but were made in anticipation of a possible finding against the council and what might then have to be addressed. Although we did not make any formal recommendations, we did point out to the council that this presented a confusing picture and that their policy should be clear to the public.