Local Government

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.

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.