Local Government

Summary

When Ms C complained to the council about issues to do with her council tax, they told her they would respond within five working days. They in fact replied after about three working weeks and when Ms C complained about this, they said that when they had reviewed her complaint they considered it was too complex for a response at the first stage of their complaints procedure, which has a five-day turnaround. They had, therefore, responded to it at stage two, within the twenty working day timescale for that stage. They accepted that they should have told her about this, and apologised. Ms C submitted further complaints to the council and was dissatisfied with the responses, so brought the matter to us.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that the council had not responded within five working days, but made no recommendations as we took the view that they acted appropriately after Ms C complained about this. We found that their responses to her other complaints were reasonable.

Summary

Mr C originally submitted a complaint to us in June 2012 (case 201201234) about development at a holiday park. We issued a decision in February 2013, upholding that complaint. Mr C then made a related follow-up complaint (case 201302324) to us. In this, he complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow the correct policies and procedures in relation to the landscaping consent conditions on a planning application, enforce the consent conditions, and follow their own policy about a regional scenic area.

Mr C has since made a further related complaint (case 201304125) that the council delayed in responding to information about unauthorised excavation works and failed to investigate reports of unauthorised development. We, therefore, decided to close case 201302324 and to merge it with case 201304125. These complaints will be reported on together.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live in a housing association property. There was a history of noise and other antisocial behaviour from neighbours, and Mr and Mrs C had reported this many times. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council, who were partners in a protocol along with the association, did not respond reasonably to reports of noise nuisance over an 18-month period. They also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to a letter expressing dissatisfaction with how their complaint had been dealt with.

A local councillor had earlier raised Mr and Mrs C's concerns with the association and with council officers, and asked if noise monitoring equipment might be provided in their home. Mr and Mrs C were, however, asked to contact the police when noise nuisance arose and noise monitoring equipment was not provided until after they had formally complained to the council. We did not, however, uphold this complaint because the council explained why they had not installed the equipment, and we found that their actions had otherwise been reasonable. We also found that the council had handled Mr and Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action after she complained about antisocial behaviour by neighbours.

During our investigation, the council told us that the neighbours had moved out. As we were by that point satisfied that the council had shown us that they had taken Miss C's complaints seriously, and had liaised with other agencies, including the police, to investigate the matter, we decided that no further action on our part was needed.

Summary

Mr C lives in a small estate. When the council granted planning consent for the development they approved landscaping plans, and put in place a planning condition to control the date of completion of the landscaping and the replacement of diseased or damaged plants. They did not, however, include any provision for a scheme of maintenance.

Mr C told us that some of the open space next to his home had not been landscaped, and he was concerned that other parts of the estate appeared to be getting a more frequent grass cut and related maintenance. He complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure that landscaping in the housing development was in accordance with approved plans.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, and we upheld the complaint. The adviser said that while one approved drawing had included a landscape maintenance schedule, this had not been included in any of the relevant consents and this had given rise to Mr C's complaint. Mr C wanted the council to take enforcement action, but this was not possible.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their use of planning conditions with regard to securing control over the management arrangements for long term maintenance of landscaping and open space; and
• ensure that all application documents on which such matters depend are captured by references to approved documents in the terms of the decision.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action over a number of breaches of planning conditions on a local site. Work on the site had stopped with only one of the planned houses completed. Mr C complained that the breaches of planning conditions had left the site unsafe, and that failing to enforce these conditions would set a precedent that allowed developers to ignore them without fear of enforcement.

We took independent advice on this from our planning adviser. He confirmed that the council were correct when they told Mr C that they were entitled to exercise their discretion in deciding whether it was an appropriate use of resources to pursue a breach of planning conditions. The council also had to consider whether enforcement was in the public interest, and had to take into account government advice that developers struggling to complete works due to financial pressures should not be placed under an additional burden by enforcement action for technical breaches of planning conditions.

Our investigation found that although the council had mistakenly said that one condition had been met fully when it had not, they had now taken enforcement action against the developer on this. The council were using their discretionary powers when considering whether or not to take enforcement action and had acted in accordance with Scottish Government guidance on planning enforcement. It was clear that there was no maladministration or service failure by the council and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy that the council breached a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He told us that, because a council officer made wrong assumptions about which tree was to be felled, the council had granted permission for the felling of a healthy tree that was the subject of a TPO. Before Mr C brought his complaint to us, the council had acknowledged their error and apologised to him for it. However, Mr C said that the council had given him unsatisfactory and confusing responses to his complaint.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that the council had focused on inadequate explanations for the errors, instead of reviewing their procedures as they should have done. As the council appeared to have given more weight to defending their actions than to reviewing procedures, inconsistencies had then emerged in their responses to Mr C. The council had acknowledged that the wrong tree had been felled, and that the tree had not been properly identified before permission was given, which was a relatively serious mistake. The adviser had concerns that the complaint was not investigated thoroughly enough, especially as the deficiencies related to planning procedures. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council's investigation and complaints handling was inadequate and inconsistent.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the comments on the content of procedural guidance on tree works consent applications (in addition to matters already identified by the council) and advise the Ombudsman of their intentions with regard to carrying out a review of procedures and making the relevant staff aware of them;
• ensure that appropriate action is taken to avoid such an incident recurring and advise the Ombudsman of the action taken; and
• issue Mr C with a full and sincere apology for the failings identified in this complaint.

Summary

Mr C's child exhibited behaviour that led to a guidance teacher suggesting that the child be assessed for Asperger's syndrome disorder. Meanwhile the school worked on a protocol to manage the child's behaviour in class. Before this could be put in place, however, the child was involved in an incident that led to a referral to an Additional Needs Tribunal. The tribunal said that the council had not made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Mr C then requested a coordinated support plan for his child but this took over eight months to finalise.

Mr C complained to us that in planning his child's education the council did not apply policy and procedures to meet the additional support needs required, and failed to ensure that the school communicated with him and his wife appropriately and adequately. He also complained that they did not ensure that the school maintained adequate record-keeping, and that problems with his child's attendance were not promptly addressed.

We upheld three of Mr C's four complaints. We found that the guideline for providing a support plan is four weeks, and that the council had taken far too long to provide this at a particularly important time in the child's education. We also found that communications were inappropriate and that on three occasions records were inadequate. We did not uphold the complaint about attendance, as we did not find sufficient evidence to do so.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in our investigation; and
• demonstrate that relevant staff are reminded of the policies, procedures and timescales to be adhered to when a coordinated support plan is requested.

Summary

After Mrs C began to extend the height of a fence in her garden, the planning department contacted her and explained that planning permission was required to do this. Mrs C said, however, that the council told her on more than one occasion that they could see no reason why planning permission would be refused. She applied for planning permission but this was refused some four months later. Mrs C was unhappy about the delay in reaching a decision on her application, and said that she was not kept properly informed and that she was given incorrect information about the likelihood of the application being granted. She complained to us that the council's handling of her application was unreasonable.

After carefully reviewing the relevant paperwork, we concluded that although the application could have been dealt with more quickly, when no decision had been made within two months, Mrs C had the right to appeal about the fact that her application had not been determined. We noted that the council had told her agent about this. The council had also accepted that she was not kept properly informed about progress, and had apologised. We did not see any evidence to confirm one way or another whether Mrs C was actually given incorrect information prior to her application being submitted. Having taken all this into account, on balance, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr and Ms C were unhappy with the council's handling of their complaints. After we contacted the council about this, the council decided that Mr and Ms C's complaints should be upheld and the second stage of their complaints process repeated. As Mr and Ms C were satisfied with this outcome, we did not take the matter further.