Local Government

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained to us about how the council handled their complaints about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour (ASB). They said that their sleep was frequently disturbed and they were concerned for the safety of their family and property. They complained that the council had failed to investigate, had not responded to complaints within their published timescales and did not keep them informed about what action was being taken. Mr C and Ms C had also kept diary sheets with details of the disturbances that had been occurring, and they said that the council had failed to act on these.

We upheld Mr C and Ms C's complaint. Our investigation found that they had complained to the council over a nineteen-month period. The council had recorded or noted several incidents, and had taken action after the first few, but had then failed to follow up later complaints appropriately. We found that the council had only issued diary sheets once, and had not followed up when they did not receive completed copies. We also found that internal communication documents showed that the council were aware that the situation was deteriorating, but they took several months to achieve a satisfactory solution. The council also failed to appropriately record and respond to each complaint within their published timescales and, in particular, did not keep Mr C and Ms C informed of the outcome of their investigations or their decisions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that staff are fully aware of the requirements in relation to the maintenance of records of complaints, interviews and communications in relation to ASB;
• ensure that staff fulfil the requirements of the council's procedure and guidance in relation to diary sheets;
• highlight to staff the impact of not responding to complaints of ASB within their published timescales; and
• apologise to Ms C and Mr C for the failings we identified and for the time taken in bringing this complaint to us.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about their handling of an incident involving her late brother (Mr A). Mr A had severe learning difficulties and at the time of the incident was receiving 24-hour support at home from a care provider. He fell down a flight of stairs and was seriously injured, after the carer administered a drug with a sedative effect. Mr A died some time later.

We acknowledged that the council's communication with Ms C could have been clearer in relation to who was actually investigating the incident but did not consider that they had intentionally misled her. Neither did we consider it unreasonable that the council did not hold a further complaints hearing after Ms C provided them with a report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the report contained little information that was not already available to the council. We also determined that the council provided a reasonable explanation about why they did not follow procedures laid out in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and associated code of practice issued by the Scottish Government.

We noted, however, that the Scottish Government introduced guidance two months after the incident, clarifying the role of the chief social work officer (CSWO). This outlined that the CSWO should ensure that significant case reviews are carried out into all critical incidents either resulting in, or which could have resulted in, death or serious harm. Although the guidance was not in place at the time of the incident involving Ms C's brother, it came into effect less than two months later, and the council received the care provider's report into the investigation after the guidance had been published. Given the seriousness of the incident, therefore, and the fact that the HSE only recently disclosed more of their report, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to have conducted a significant case review. This would have enabled them to look at all aspects of Mr A's care, to properly establish whether any lessons had to be learned or improvements in practice were needed. As, however, the independent chair of the council's adult support and protection committee had since agreed to conduct such a review, we made no recommendations about this.

Summary

Mr C complained about the development process after a development close to his home was given planning permission. He said that the permission granted was subject to twelve conditions as the site concerned was both prominent and beautiful. Mr C said that the developer ignored a number of the conditions and that although Mr C complained, the council had failed to take enforcement action and had been 'soft' on the developer and his agents.

The complaint was investigated and all the relevant documentation and the complaints correspondence was taken into account. Independent planning advice was also obtained and taken into consideration. Our investigation found that the development was complicated because of the nature of the site, but that the council had closely monitored it. While enforcement action was considered because of problems with adherence to the conditions, the council opted to progress this by negotiating with the developer, as they had the right to decide to do. Our adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable approach for them to take. We also found that the council had looked at all Mr C's complaints and, where necessary, had raised his concerns with the developer.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the council's actions in relation to planning permission that they granted for an agricultural building. She said that they had failed to take into account a legal agreement they had made with the applicant a number of years before. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the council had considered the legal agreement, but were entitled to decide not to take any action against the applicant in relation to it. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to give the environmental impact of the application the level of scrutiny required by their policies and relevant plans. We considered that the environmental impact had been adequately assessed, and that they had not been required to consider alternative sites for the building.

Although in their report on the matter the council had not listed a policy that was particularly relevant to the application, and we upheld Mrs C's complaint about that, we found that they did consider the issues in the policy during the application and so the omission did not appear to have affected the outcome. We also found that, other than this, they had presented the relevant information. In addition, we found that they engaged reasonably with local residents who objected to the application. Finally, Mrs C said that the council had failed to take action against the applicant for misleading consultees during the pre-planning consultation process. We found, however, that it had been reasonable for them not to do so. There are no provisions in planning legislation for such action and the only redress for any issues arising from the pre-application consultation stage is through consideration of how these may have affected the merits of the application once it is made.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had decided to relocate a disabled parking space to a position further from his home. They had initially marked out the space close to his home. However, after consultation with other residents, they decided to move it to a position 15 metres further away. They explained that this space was the most appropriate location for the convenience of all car park users and provided access for blue badge holders and more space for wheelchair users, should this be required.

We considered the legislation in relation to parking places for disabled persons. Although the council had delayed in starting the consultation process, the decision to move the disabled parking space was one they were entitled to take. They had subsequently decided on its location in line with the relevant legislation. In view of this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her elderly mother (Mrs A), who had been served with a summary warrant for non-payment of council tax. Mrs C said her mother had not received the necessary reminder letters that should be issued when a council tax instalment is not paid on the due date. She believed that the council had failed to follow the correct process and was unhappy that a summary warrant was served and a bill for late payment issued in addition to Mrs A's council tax. She remained dissatisfied with what she saw as the council's unsympathetic response after she had made them aware that her mother had suffered two strokes in the last eighteen months which had left her unwell, disorientated and confused.

Although we appreciated that Mrs A had been unwell, there was evidence that she had been made aware of her responsibility to pay council tax and what would happen if she did not pay on the due date. We checked and were satisfied that the council had issued the reminder letters, noting that they have a duty to collect council tax in accordance with the legislation and are not able to take individual circumstances into account in the way Mrs C had thought they should. There was no evidence to show that the letters were not delivered, and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint as there was nothing to suggest that the council had done anything wrong.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council were seeking to recover outstanding council tax for a property he rented in 2010. He was unhappy because before terminating the lease he had contacted the council and was told that, as the lease was for less than six months, the landlord would be responsible for the council tax. He explained that he had not got back his deposit on the flat, as the landlord had said they would use it to pay any outstanding council tax. The landlord did not, however, do so.

In response to his complaint, the council acknowledged that they gave Mr C inaccurate information when he contacted them. However, they said that after this call they had obtained copies of his lease, which showed it was a six month contract and not a shorter one, as had been understood from the earlier contact. As the lease was for six months, Mr C was due to pay the council tax, even if the lease was terminated early.

We considered the information provided by both Mr C and the council. We were satisfied that the original lease had been for six months and so the council were entitled to seek council tax from him, and not the landlord. Although we could see that they had told Mr C that he would not be liable for council tax as the lease was under six months, we could not say whether they told him this in error, or because he did not give full details of the original lease. As Mr C was liable for the outstanding council tax, and as we could not determine the basis on which the council advised him that he would not be liable, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council restricted her access to the noise complaint reporting system and failed to acknowledge her concerns as complaints about antisocial behaviour. She also complained that they unreasonably imposed restrictions on her contact with them, through their unacceptable actions policy.

Our investigation found that Miss C had met the criteria for bringing their policy into effect, in terms of both her behaviour and her demands. We also found that, although the council had told her they would not in future respond to Miss C's emails or phone calls, they had put in place alternative means for her to complain about antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance and had continued to receive and respond to her letters. We did not uphold her complaints, as we found no evidence that the council had breached their policy, and noted they had committed to a regular review of the restrictions imposed on Miss C.

Summary

Ms C told us that when she decided to move house, she gave notice to the council and moved to a private tenancy. No one checked the house before she left. A few months later, the council invoiced her for a large sum of money. The council said that this represented the cost of various repair and reinstatement works for which she was responsible under the terms of her tenancy agreement. While Ms C agreed that she might be liable for some of the cost, she said that the remainder was the responsibility of the previous tenant.

Our investigation found that Ms C's tenancy agreement was created when she took over the tenancy from a relative, with whom she had lived. This type of tenancy did not require an exit check when Ms C's relative moved out, and so in signing her own tenancy agreement, Ms C had assumed responsibility for the condition of the property. The council told us that after Ms C left the property, they inspected it and found that it was not in lettable condition. Repairs, reinstatement and cleaning works were required. The council had then charged Ms C for these, under the terms of her tenancy agreement. Although Ms C felt that she had been overcharged, we found no evidence of this.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not acted appropriately over a noise nuisance that he said affected his home. He was also unhappy with their planning process. He told us that the council had delayed in taking action over noise nuisance and had been unduly accommodating to the company operating the site involved. He also said that his complaints had not been investigated properly and that council departments had failed to liaise about the problem. He told us that this resulted in the planning department failing to carry out a noise impact assessment, even though a freedom of information request had identified previous complaints about noise from the site.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as the evidence showed that the council had rigorously investigated his concerns, including carrying out tests, and that no statutory noise nuisance was established at his property. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who confirmed that the council had acted appropriately when they accepted and approved a retrospective planning application from the company operating the site.