Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to respond to her complaint that council staff refused to provide receipts when she hand delivered letters to the reception desk at council offices. She told us that she had explained to the council that she did not use email and found it impractical to use registered post, but had experienced situations where council officials had denied receiving correspondence, or important documents had gone astray. She said that she had been told by council staff that the council do not provide receipts.

Our investigation found that the council do not have a policy or process for providing receipts where mail has been hand delivered, but were considering this as part of an ongoing internal review of their practices, which we considered helpful. We said we would ask the council to let us know the outcome of this. However, they were unable to explain why Ms C’s complaint about the matter was not dealt with under their complaints procedure, so we upheld that element of the complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review internal arrangements for the receipt, logging and acknowledging of complaints correspondence to provide assurance that the council fully comply with the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure;
• apologise to Ms C for the failure to deal with her complaints; and
• ensure that the issues Ms C raised in her letters of complaint are dealt with, in line with the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not provide him with a reasonable standard of customer service when they failed to respond to his request for a copy of his marriage certificate in a reasonable timescale or, on two separate occasions, pay the postage on mail they sent to him. Mr C told us that the outcome he was seeking from pursuing his complaint was payment of his expenses.

When we raised Mr C’s complaint with the council, they apologised for the unfortunate series of events that had resulted in Mr C’s request not being dealt with properly, and failure to pay postage. To resolve the complaint, the council told us that the mail service was being reviewed as part of their service improvement programme. They also explained that staff had been reminded of the importance of ensuring that all items were appropriately stamped. As a remedy, the council offered a payment partly to cover his expenses and partly as a goodwill gesture. Mr C was satisfied with this, and we did not issue a decision on the case as it was resolved.

Summary

Mr C is the non-resident owner of a flat in a block where the council also owned a flat. When Mr C bought his flat in 2006, he was aware that the council wanted to carry out repairs to the building. While Mr C agreed, the other private owners did not, and only an emergency repair was undertaken. When the council tenant then found dampness in their flat, the council inspected the block and, given the lack of previous consensus on the subject of repairs, issued a statutory repairs notice. The database they used for notifying owners was not, however, updated and so Mr C and another non-resident flat owner did not receive letters about this, either from the council or from their contract administrators. Mr C eventually became aware of the notice some two years after it was issued, and paid his share of the costs. More recently, however, after media reports alerted Mr C to concerns about the administration of statutory notice contracts, he complained. Mr C received a final reply from a senior official some months later.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about his requests for information about why the block of flats was selected for a statutory notice and the choice of contractor or about additional works undertaken, as we did not find that anything had gone wrong in this. We did, however, find that the council did not fully consider his complaint and review his case, as they had linked it to a similar complaint from another owner, and had not considered all the issues Mr C had raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether they should rebate the fee levied on Mr C for his share of the costs of the council’s administration of the contract.

Summary

Some years ago, a developer submitted a planning application to build a block of flats behind Mr C's home. The application included a plan showing an intention for plants to be used as a screen at the boundary between the flats and Mr C's property. During the application process, the council's development quality sub-committee carried out a site visit and issued a report requiring that a condition be included in any planning consent, requiring formal approval of landscaping plans with particular regard to screening at that boundary. Mr C complained on behalf of a number of local residents that existing plants were removed from there, and no screening was introduced. He said that the council had not enforced the planning condition.

We took independent advice on the complaint from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the planning department approved the application and the associated landscaping plans, and had the appropriate delegated authority to do so. Revised landscaping plans were submitted that did not include screening at that boundary. As there was no specific planning need for this (daylight and privacy requirements had been comfortably met), and a strip of land to the east of the development was required for access to a gas main, the planning department approved the revised plans.

It was clear from the evidence submitted to us that the sub-committee were strongly of the view that screen planting should be used between the development and existing properties. Although we acknowledged that the final position taken by the planning department was reasonable, we were concerned that the planning department acted without taking account of the fact that the submitted landscaping plans were clearly at odds to those originally submitted and the intentions of the sub-committee. In response to our enquiries, the council had told us that the condition proposed by the sub-committee was unenforceable and did not meet the basic standards for planning conditions. That being the case, we considered that there was ample opportunity for the planning department to have highlighted this to the sub-committee before the planning decision notice was issued. The condition could have been amended or removed, avoiding expectations being raised that screen planting would be in place when the development was completed. We also considered that, as this had been a contentious development, which attracted a large number of objections, the council should have done more to ensure that their decision-making was transparent.

Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of his complaints, but we found this to be satisfactory.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their communication procedures so that in situations where approvals under planning conditions are clearly significantly at odds with the terms of the decision on the application itself, an explanation of the reasons is provided to interested parties; and
• review their procedures for identifying planning conditions that they consider do not meet the standards set out in planning circular 4/1998 and addressing such matters before decision notices are issued.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to service his electric central heating system regularly or to a sufficient standard. He also was of the view that they were not qualified to carry out this work. In addition, he complained that the council did not respond adequately to his complaints of dampness in his home.

When responding to his complaint, the council confirmed that his heating system was serviced annually, although they said that from a safety point of view this was not required by law. They acknowledged that there had been problems in the recording of one of the services carried out but this was corrected shortly afterwards. They explained that their officers were suitably qualified. In terms of the dampness, they inspected the property on a number of occasions and no dampness was found in the walls. In their view the problem resulted from condensation caused by a lack of heating, the storage of materials in bedrooms and poor ventilation. They carried out works to try and alleviate this and provided Mr C with advice on how to reduce the risk of condensation. As this did not resolve the problem, they agreed to re-render the exterior walls, as Mr C had requested.

We found that, although there had been problems with the council's original heating contractors, Mr C's heating system was serviced annually from the start of his tenancy. We noted that the council had supervised the work of their officers to ensure that they were servicing heating systems correctly and we saw details of their qualifications. In addition, we noted that the council had responded to Mr C's complaints of dampness in line with their housing management policy, had carried out inspections and had taken steps to reduce the risk of condensation. Although we cannot say whether these steps will ultimately resolve the problem, as the council responded in line with their policies, and as Mr C's heating system was serviced annually by appropriately qualified officers, we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

In December 2010 Ms C invited her elderly father to her home in England to spend Christmas with her. While he was there, he became ill and was not able to return to his home in the council's area. Ms C had to become her father’s main carer. He was assessed in February 2011, after which the council made free personal nursing care payments for him. Ms C then had considerable contact with the council over details of the care package, the number of hours awarded, the degree of retrospection of the award, and issues about respite care.

Ms C first considered complaining to the council in October 2011, and eventually did so in February 2012. After completing its initial stages the complaint was considered at a complaints review committee (CRC) in August 2012, with Ms C participating through a video link. The recommendations of the CRC were reported to the council’s leadership panel in October 2012 and Ms C was informed of the outcome two days later.

Ms C complained to us that the council’s handling of her complaint was unreasonable. Our investigation focused on five complaints handling issues. One related to information about the complaints procedure in October 2011, three were about delay (in dealing with an initial internal complaint, in supplying a form to request a CRC and a delay in convening that CRC and making recommendations to the appropriate committee) and the fifth was that a summary report did not include a full minute of the proceedings of the CRC.

Our investigation found that there had been delay, and we upheld the three complaints relating to this, but we did not find evidence to support the other two complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delays in dealing with the complaint submitted to them.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council dealt with his complaint about their education services. He also complained that they unreasonably told him that they would no longer correspond with him by email.

Having reviewed the evidence, our investigation found that the council had responded to his complaints in line with their procedures. We noted, however, that they had given an incorrect reason for restricting his email contact, and had failed to ask him to reduce the level of email correspondence he was providing before restricting his contact with them. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to Mr C to apologise for giving inaccurate reasons for restricting his email contact.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to preserve his free and safe access to a public right of way by refusing to require that the operator of a wind farm remove a number of turbines. He also complained that they failed to ensure that there was an appropriate separation distance between the turbines and the right of way.

The council said that they had relocated the pathway to enable it to make use of a surfaced route previously used by the developer during construction of the turbines. They explained that the planning department had consulted the council's access officer who was happy with the position of the path in relation to the turbines. The original path was not a physically defined route and, despite the development of the new path, there was nothing to stop walkers accessing the original route. In addition, they advised that they were unaware of any minimum distance criteria between paths and turbines.

Having reviewed the background correspondence, we found that the council's actions were designed to improve public access. We noted their view that the original route could still be accessed and we found no evidence of minimum separation distance criteria between path and turbine. We also noted that the only way to determine whether the council have failed in their legal responsibilities to maintain a public right of way is to make an application to a sheriff. As we found no evidence to suggest that the council acted inappropriately in respect of this pathway and the separation distances between path and turbine, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs A was unhappy with the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. Her daughter (Miss C) complained on her behalf that council planning officers had considered the application, under delegated powers. She said that the application should have been referred to a council committee as she understood that it related to land that was in council ownership. She also complained that the council had failed to consult with those neighbouring the site, and unreasonably allowed the extension to be built over a culvert (a drain or covered channel that allows water to flow under a road) in a flood risk area.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. We found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in approving the planning application under delegated powers. They had provided Miss C with documentation showing that they did not own any of the land to which the planning application referred. We were also satisfied that the council had carried out the neighbour notification process appropriately and had not needed to consult with some organisations that Miss C thought should have been involved. Finally, we noted that there was no presumption against development over culverts such as this one, and that the existence of the culvert had been fully taken into account during the planning process.

Summary

Mr C made three complaints about a wind turbine about which, because of its distance from his home, he had not received neighbour notification. The planning application was determined by council officers under delegated powers. Mr C complained that the council failed to require that a revised visual impact assessment was carried out (there had been an increase in the turbine height from a previously approved proposal); unreasonably granted planning consent despite the turbine height exceeding their own 60 metre guideline; and failed to take into account the impact of the development on properties between 500 and 750 metres from the site.

Having taken detailed independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that the planning authority had clearly taken account of the material consideration of visual impact, both on the landscape and on adjacent houses. He considered that the guidance was essentially a strategic tool rather than a rigid policy threshold which could not be breached, and that the council had showed some flexibility and discretion by approving a turbine one metre higher than that guidance. He also said that the report of handling (a document about the application) and other documents submitted with the application showed that the visual and other impacts (particularly noise) on properties under 500 metres had been considered acceptable. In the adviser's view, it could then reasonably be assumed that this would be the case for dwellings sited more than 500 metres away.