Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C made nine complaints about a wind turbine. Because of the distance between the turbine and his property, he had not received neighbour notification about the development, which was determined by council officers under delegated powers. Mr C said that the council ignored current guidance in assessing the noise impact; the officers’ report of handling (a document about the application) unreasonably failed to make a clear distinction about whether the separation distance was from the wind turbine to his property or to his house and contained a number of other defects. He also said that the assessment and report of handling were flawed in failing to take into account the impact of disruption to him from ancillary works, and unreasonably failed to address how the wind turbine would connect to the grid. He further complained that the council had not imposed an upper limit in the grant of planning permission and had unreasonably failed to handle his complaint in compliance with their published service standards.

After obtaining detailed independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that the council had taken into account current advice on noise impact; that the report of handling was not defective in respect of the matters raised by Mr C and that provision for the ancillary works had been made in the planning consent conditions. We founds that the other matters raised constituted permitted development (development that does not need planning permission). Finally we found that the council had handled the complaint reasonably and without delay.

Summary

Mr C corresponded with and complained to the council about their maintenance of a park. He was dissatisfied at the end of the complaints procedure and raised his complaints with us, including that they had not responded appropriately to his complaints.

We found that there was evidence that the council had reasonably maintained the park during the period concerned. However, we also found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints because they did not provide full responses to the issues he raised, and on one occasion provided inaccurate information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the complaints handling issues identified; and
• ensure all staff are reminded of the need to provide full responses to complaints.

Summary

Mr C lives with his partner (Ms B), who has a disability. He complained about the council’s handling of the couple's request for a mutual exchange of council properties. He said the council unreasonably refused permission for this on the basis that the property that Mr C and Ms B were hoping to move into could not be fully adapted to Ms B’s potential future requirements. Mr C said the council told him that if he wished to go against their decision and proceed with the exchange he would have to sign a disclaimer saying that he accepted that the council would not be responsible for any future adaptations, and that he would have to fund these himself. Mr C said the council later changed their policy and agreed the exchange, but he also complained that they then failed to carry out a property condition check before the exchange took place.

Our investigation found that the council’s written policy on mutual exchanges at the time did not say that properties had to be fully adaptable. When we asked them for information, they explained they had based their decision on an unwritten policy about this, which they said meant that the mutual exchange could not be granted. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that it was not appropriate for the council to rely on an unapproved, unwritten policy when determining whether a mutual exchange could be granted. As there was nothing in their procedure on mutual exchanges to indicate that the exchange should not be approved, we considered that they unreasonably refused permission. It was also clear that the council’s policy did not require tenants to sign disclaimers in situations such as this. Again, it appeared that the council were operating an unwritten policy on completion of disclaimers in respect of future adaptations. We did not uphold the complaint about the property check, as the council provided us with evidence that they inspected the property before the mutual exchange.

We noted that the council had apologised for some of their failings and had taken some remedial action, but we made recommendations as we considered that further remedial action was required.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mr C and Ms B with a written apology for unreasonably refusing permission for their mutual exchange;
• feed back to the staff involved our decision about their refusal of the mutual exchange;
• revise their mutual exchange policy to include information on the adaptability of properties; and
• provide the Ombudsman with documentary evidence of the feedback previously given to staff about this complaint and the refresher training they received.

Summary

After his circumstances changed, Mr C felt that he could no longer remain in his privately rented accommodation. He was finding his situation very stressful due to mental health problems. He approached the council for assistance but he complained that the way they processed his housing application was unreasonable. He also said that they failed to follow proper processes, delayed in allowing him access to their web-based portal service and wrongly said that he had failed to obtain permission to tape a meeting. He said that the council's handling of his complaint to them about this was inadequate.

When investigating the complaint, we considered the complaints correspondence, details of Mr C's housing application, copies of the council's internal records and the council's housing allocations policy. We also contacted Mr C's community psychiatric nurse. Our investigation found that the council followed their procedures when dealing with Mr C's application and that taking his health problems into account they had, with his agreement, made arrangements for him to stay longer in his privately rented accommodation. Although Mr C was clear that he had requested the council's permission to tape a meeting he had with their officer, we found no written evidence of this. We did not uphold either of these complaints, but we did uphold the other three. There was clear evidence that the council's communication with Mr C was poor. The council acknowledged this and had apologised. There was also evidence that there was delay in allowing Mr C access to their portal helpline service, and in responding to his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their failure in this matter; and
• emphasise to helpline staff the importance of a timely reply.