Local Government

Summary

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not reasonably investigate reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour, who is a council tenant, and about whom there had been many other complaints. Ms C wrote to the council several times, then contact stopped for a year, by the end of which Mr and Mrs A had moved. When Ms C first contacted us over a year after that, we told her that she would first need to complain through the council’s complaints procedures. She did so, and then complained again to us. We suspended our consideration of the complaint to allow further information to be supplied, explaining to Ms C that we could normally only look at a complaint about something that had happened, or that she had found out about, within the last twelve months. When we re-opened her complaint, we found we were effectively restricted to looking into matters for about a seven month period, until before Mr and Mrs A moved out. We considered the council’s actions during that period, and found that they had issued a final warning to the tenant. Our investigation did not find this unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C purchased a property, which proved to have significant structural problems in an extension completed by the previous owner. Mr C made a number of complaints about the completion certificate process, and said that the council had failed to ensure that the local authority building surveyor who verified the certificate had carried out his role properly. He was also unhappy with the council's complaints handling.

Mr C said that the building warrant for the property had expired, and no extension had been sought before the certificate of completion was granted. He believed that this meant that the building regulations in force at the time of the inspection should have applied to the property. He said that this would have required a different type of electrical certificate to that presented to the surveyor, and would have resulted in significant problems with the electrics being identified. Mr C thought that the council would not then have approved the completion certificate, and he would not have purchased the property.

Our investigation found that the local authority did not have responsibility to carry out anything more than a non-disruptive survey, and that responsibility for ensuring that work on the property matched that described on the building warrant lay with the individual submitting the completion certificate. We also found that the grounds for refusing an extension to a building warrant only apply where little or no construction has taken place. In this case the building was completed within the timeframe of the warrant and the completion certificate applied for, so there would have been no grounds for refusal.

We also found that the extent of a non-disruptive survey was a matter of professional judgement for the building surveyor. Although Mr C disputed the professionalism of his work, this was not a matter that we could consider. We also found that the surveyor was only required to carry out a 'reasonable enquiry' with regard to specialist matters such as electrical certification.

On the complaints handling, although we found that the council's first response to Mr C lacked empathy, given the difficult and distressing situation in which he found himself, their overall handling of his complaint was reasonable.

Summary

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not act reasonably and correctly when they withdrew school transport. The council had introduced a revised home to school travel policy, in line with national guidelines, which meant that Mr and Mrs A's children no longer qualified for free transport to school. They also said that proper procedures had not been followed when the council dealt with the case and the appeal. Mr and Mrs A were told they could not complain as the decision of the sub-committee was final.

Our investigation found that the appeal sub-committee that took the decision did not have full, accurate and relevant information about the route in question. Additionally, as there was no statutory right of appeal, Mr and Mrs A should have been signposted to us, as they were entitled to an independent review of their concerns. We upheld both complaints and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their decision about the provision of transport in this case;
• review their policy wording to reflect advice on signposting for internal appeals procedures; and
• apologise for not signposting to SPSO at the end of the appeal process in this case.

Following a review, this report was changed on 25 February 2015. The full revised version of the report is available below.

Case:              201303605: Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

Sector:           local government

Subject:         school transport

Outcome:       some upheld, recommendations

Summary

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not act reasonably and correctly when they withdrew school transport. The council had introduced a revised home to school travel policy, in line with national guidelines, which meant that Mr and Mrs A's children no longer qualified for free transport to school. They also said that proper procedures had not been followed when the council dealt with the case and the appeal. Mr and Mrs A were told they could not complain as the decision of the sub-committee was final.

Our investigation found that the appeal sub-committee applied the revised policy correctly in considering Mr and Mrs A's appeal. We did not uphold the first complaint although we made two recommendations about how the clarity of the process could be improved. However, as there was no statutory right of appeal, Mr and Mrs A should have been signposted to us, as they were entitled to an independent review of their concerns and we upheld the complaint that the council failed to follow proper procedures in dealing with the case and subsequent appeal and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their policy wording to reflect advice on signposting for internal appeals procedures;
• apologise for not signposting to SPSO at the end of the appeal process in this case;
• amend the appeal application form to include a section for parents to complete detailing why they are not able to act as an accompanying adult/meet the parental responsibilities outlined at Paragraph 6.1 of the home to school transport policy; and
• give consideration to giving clearer guidance around the statement in the school transport guide for parents that pupils should be accompanied 'until they can confidently and safely walk the route'.

Summary

Mr C had a complaint about a building company who were members of the council's 'buy with confidence' scheme. Mr C contacted council officers about his complaint and they took action in relation to it. He complained to the council that the company had been allowed to join the scheme contrary to its conditions, that the council unreasonably refused to implement conditions of the scheme in regard to his complaint and that officers had not responded reasonably to his correspondence. The council's final position was that some of his correspondence could have been responded to more quickly but that they had otherwise acted reasonably. Mr C was dissatisfied with this response and with other aspects of complaints handling and complained to us.

We upheld Mr C's complaints because there was no evidence that the company had complied with the conditions of membership of the scheme at the time of their joining. We also found that the council had not sought Mr C's agreement to use an arbitration scheme in relation to his complaint against the company, and had not responded reasonably to his correspondence or complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the application audits of all members of their 'buy with confidence' scheme, identify any application audits that were not reasonably completed and re-audit those applications (members whose applications are found not to have met the conditions for membership should then be removed from the scheme pending re-application);
• provide refresher training to all officers who undertake audits of applications for membership of the scheme;
• apologise to Mr C for not implementing a condition of the scheme;
• remind relevant officers of the conditions of the scheme and the steps that require to be taken in dealing with complaints about members of it;
• seek the agreement of Mr C and the company for the use of an arbitration scheme in relation to any outstanding complaints; and
• apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to correspondence.

Summary

Mr and Ms C complained because the council decided to transfer their child to a composite school class (a class in which there are pupils from two or more year groups). Mr and Ms C said that this was done without any proper prior notice or discussion. They also said they learned this three days before the end of term and suspected that this was intentional. Mr and Ms C also complained that their child was being discriminated against in terms of age and questioned whether the council had followed their stated policy.

When investigating the complaint, we took into account all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence, phone notes, emails and the policy concerned. We did not uphold the complaint, as our investigation found that the council had taken action under the policy to inform parents (through newsletters and the parent council) about what was happening. Council documents also showed that it had not been possible to tell Mr and Ms C earlier, as the school did not know its final roll until near the end of term, and further changes to the roll could have led to further restructuring. Although Mr and Ms C also believed that their complaint had not been handled correctly, the evidence showed that they had been advised of a delay and the reasons for it, and that they had said they were happy with this.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of a client (Mr A) that the council acted unreasonably when they included a note on planning permission issued in response to Mr A's planning application. The note said that the building referred to in the application was not a dwelling house. Our investigation found that, in stating an opinion on a legal interpretation, the note went further than normal informative notes. Although this was a view that the council were entitled to hold, we found that it was not appropriate to communicate it in such a note, and we found that they had acted unreasonably in doing so.

Mr A's representatives subsequently discussed the note with the council. Mr C said that they were told that the note could not be removed. Mr C then wrote to the council and said that he had been instructed to raise proceedings for judicial review. The council obtained legal advice from their solicitors. After considering the legal advice, the council removed the note. However, Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to engage with Mr A's representatives properly, which meant that they had to raise proceedings for judicial review before the council agreed to remove the note. Mr C said that they had incurred costs of over £8,000 and wanted the council to reimburse them. We did not, however, uphold this complaint. We found that under the planning regulations there were remedies available to remove the note, of which Mr A's professional advisers would have been aware. They could have pursued these rather than applying for judicial review. We also considered that the council had not been given a proper opportunity to consider the matter before the judicial review proceedings were started.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr A for inappropriately including the note in the planning permission; and
• confirm to the Ombudsman that they have learned lessons from this case and will ensure that in the future, notes of this nature will not be included in planning permission.

Summary

Ms C gave up her council tenancy in August 2012. Before she left, the council's clerk of works visited and pointed out damage to several doors which he said would need replacing. He advised it would be cheaper for her to arrange the work herself, which she did. After she left the property, she was told the work was not up to standard and was issued with a bill for the work. She queried this but got no reply. The bill was issued again, some seven or eight months later. She contacted the council again and then complained that she had been charged for these items and about the delay in contacting her about the bill.

At the initial inspection of the property, Ms C had signed a declaration that she would repair the items identified, that the list was not exhaustive (ie that further repairs might be identified at the change of tenancy inspection) and that failure to undertake the repairs would result in the council carrying them out and billing her (this is known as recharging). The change of tenancy inspection that took place after she left the property identified a number of repairs, including to the work that Ms C had arranged and paid to have done. The council said that the work was not an acceptable standard and had required repair/replacement. They provided us with photographic evidence in support of this. They wrote to Ms C after the inspection setting out the rechargeable repairs, but it appeared that Ms C did not respond to this.

It is not for us to question the council's decision about whether the work was done to an acceptable standard. That is a decision that they were entitled to take and we found no evidence of administrative error in the way they reached it. Ms C had signed the declaration and the council had written to her after the final inspection with a list of rechargeable repairs, which Ms C did not appear to have questioned at that time. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint but we did make a recommendation, as we considered that the council could have made it clearer that if the work was not done to a standard they considered acceptable, they would then carry it out and issue an account for the cost. We upheld her complaint about the delay in contacting her because, in the absence of an explanation, the delay was unreasonable. However, as the council had already apologised for the distress caused, acknowledged that they could have provided her with better support and advice and reduced the bill, we decided that no further recommendations were required.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider altering the pre-termination inspection paperwork to make it clearer to tenants that failure to have the work done to a standard acceptable to the council would result in the council carrying out the work and issuing an account for the cost.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the council's involvement in the naming of a nearby property. The name chosen by the other owner – and approved by the council – was almost identical to the name of Mrs C’s property. This caused problems with the mail, of which Mrs C became aware when she received letters for the owner of the second property.

The council explained that they check naming requests when they receive an application. However, in this case, their checks had not identified Mrs C’s property, because her property name consisted of a single word. The second application had a space in the name, although otherwise the name was identical to that of Mrs C’s property. The council acknowledged that their checks failed to identify the similarity. However, they explained that they had alerted Royal Mail to the situation to prevent future mix-ups. They also outlined their legal role in naming and numbering streets, and explained that their house naming policy aimed to prevent confusion or duplication of names. However, as property owners are responsible for property names the council said they could not legally force a change. We upheld Mrs C’s complaint as the council had failed to identify Mrs C’s property in line with their policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their administrative oversight in processing the naming request;
• confirm the steps that they have taken to ensure that when considering future naming requests this kind of error is not repeated; and
• contact the other owner, in light of our findings, to explore whether or not they would be willing to amend their house name.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the council investigated her complaint about how a school had treated her child (who had been identified as having additional support needs). She said that she felt the investigation was biased and unfair.

Our investigation found that in looking into Mrs C's complaint the council gathered information from only one source, the school's head teacher. They explained that this was because other sources were not available when they investigated the complaint (during the school summer holidays). We concluded, however, that this meant the council did not demonstrate that their investigation was balanced and reasonable. They could not contact people with potentially relevant information during the holidays but, instead of postponing the investigation until all parties could be contacted, they decided to go ahead with it. We took the view that it would have been helpful for them to have obtained evidence from an external support service and teaching staff who had provided ongoing support to Mrs C's child and who had been involved in a review meeting that Mrs C had found unsatisfactory.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise that they did not carry out a reasonable investigation into the complaints; and
• ensure that information made available for members of the public is fully in line with the content of their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C said he was experiencing problems with noise in his house. He said that although the council had installed soundproofing boards there were gaps, and a sound test had shown that there was a weak spot in the living room next to the window. He said the council had told him that his kitchen met the current standards for soundproofing and that his living room was just below the standard, so they were not prepared to carry out any further work.

In response to our enquiries the council said that there were no building regulations on standards for noise transference on older properties such as Mr C's. Although they noted that there would always be an element of day-to-day living noise in such properties, they said they were prepared to arrange for an inspection of the gaps in the boarding and to carry out any necessary repairs. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that an officer from building services inspects the gaps in the boarding and carries out any necessary repair work, as promised by the chief executive.