Local Government

Summary

Mr C, who is a landlord, complained that the council delayed in processing housing benefit applications for two of his tenants. As a result of this delay, and in particular their request to pay their rent direct to their landlord, Mr C said that the tenants gave up the lease. He also complained that, although the council had discretion to pay a landlord direct, they were failing to exercise this.

Our investigation established that the council had failed to correctly process the benefit claims. The council said that this was not due to a process failure, but provided no evidence to confirm that the handling of the applications followed a set practice or procedure. We did not find that the council had failed to pay rent directly to Mr C, as he had received payment, but we made recommendations for process improvements.

Mr C's complaint that the council had unreasonably delayed in making payment to the tenants was borne out by the evidence. The legislation for payment of housing benefit requires the first payment to be made within 14 days of receipt of the claim, or if not reasonably practical, as soon as possible thereafter. In this case, the first payment to the landlord was made seven weeks after one of the tenants applied. As the reasons for the delay were not made clear, we upheld the complaint but made no recommendation because the council had already apologised to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their practices and procedures for processing applications for housing benefit; and
• review the handling of applications where a direct payment to a landlord is requested by a tenant, landlord or agent and consider the use of a dedicated form for a request for direct payment of rent.

Summary

A local councillor (Mr C) complained on behalf of two of his constituents that works on a neighbouring property had begun without the relevant permit being issued. He was also unhappy with the council's responses to the complaints he made on his constituents' behalf.

Our investigation found that the council officer involved had verbally advised the contractor that the permit would be issued, and was then unexpectedly absent from work when the application was received. We did not uphold the complaint about this, as we decided that in the circumstances it was reasonable for the council to allow the work to progress before the permit was issued. We did uphold the complaint about the council's complaints handling because of the delay in providing Mr C with a response. As the council had taken action as a result of the complaint, by apologising and putting extra resource in place to ensure this did not happen again, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the heating system in his council property. He said that it was inefficient, that the council had failed to explain the system to him before he signed the tenancy agreement and had refused to allow him to opt out of the heating service. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations about it.

The heating system was a communal one, paid for by all the tenants in the block of flats, and had been installed a number of years before. The council accepted that, although it had been upgraded over the years, the system required further upgrading to make it more efficient, and said that they were in the process of planning to replace it. However, they said they were satisfied that it met their operational standard to provide suitable and safe heating. They also explained that the system was serviced on an annual basis and that, during the last service, no issues had been raised.

During our investigation, we found that the separate charge for the heating system had, in error, not been detailed on the tenancy agreement and that the council had no documentation to show that the heating system was explained to Mr C when he viewed the property before signing the tenancy agreement so we upheld his complaint about this. However, we did not uphold his other complaints as we were satisfied that the council had provided a proper heating system and had responded to his representations. They had explained that he could not opt out of the heating system, as it was communal, and that it could not be turned off for a single property.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether information should be provided on the heating system and the implications for the tenant, when sending out the 'first offer of housing' letter in relation to properties serviced by a communal heating system.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a planning application granted in 1988/89 for a housing development. The development turned out to be liable to flooding, and Mr C was concerned that the council had not taken this into account when considering the suitability of the site for development. He also said that, although the council had advised him over the years that a flood mitigation scheme (to try to protect the houses built on the lower level) was to be implemented, this did not happen and he had now been advised that no such scheme would be implemented.

During our investigation we found that, at the time of the development, planners did not have any responsibility to consider flooding issues and that it was not until some years after the development was completed that plans and policies were put in place to deal with flooding. We also found no evidence that the council had confirmed that a flood mitigation scheme would be implemented and noted that they had said that any such scheme would be subject to its economic viability.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the adequacy of consultation about a review of a particular water management policy for a local area of water. He felt that the council had failed to take reasonable account of opposition that they had received from statutory consultees to the policy review, and had failed to carry out adequate consultation with the public.

During our investigation we found that the policy review was on-going and that no decision had been taken. We were provided with evidence of the level of consultation carried with the public and the level of interaction with the statutory consultees and the action taken in response to the comments received from the consultees. They had clearly consulted, considered the responses and replied to the complaints, and we found no evidence that the way this was done was inappropriate.

Summary

Ms C had complained to the council about antisocial noise in her building. This had been a problem for some time and she felt that the council had failed to address the underlying issue. A flat that was the source of some of the noise was owned privately with a high turnover of tenants, and Ms C said that this contributed to the ineffectiveness of the council's approach as she felt that it had been addressed on a 'tenant-by-tenant' basis, rather than as a continuing issue. She was also dissatisfied with the way that the council handled her complaint and their responses, and she raised her complaints with us. We explained that we did not have the legal power to address the alleged antisocial behaviour on her behalf. However, we did consider the way that the council had handled her complaints.

Although Ms C questioned the council's reasons for handling matters in a certain way, this in itself, does not automatically mean that they mishandled her complaint. For example, the council had provided explanations and, although Ms C did not agree with them, these had explained the council's position. When we reviewed the correspondence, however, we felt that it indicated that the long-term problems had had a significant and distressing effect on Ms C. We took the view that the council's responses did not appear to have taken this into account, and we noted that there were delays in replying. We found they had also failed to keep Ms C updated about how matters were being progressed and so, on balance, we agreed that the council failed to deal with her complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reflect on their complaints handling at stages one and three, and advise the Ombudsman of any action taken (over and above their new complaints process) to ensure that in future complaints will be handled more appropriately; and
• apologise to Ms C for not keeping her informed of what was happening about her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not tell him that his housing benefit entitlement had been reduced to recover outstanding benefit overpayments. We found from our investigation that, although Mr C could not recall receiving advice about overpayments, the council were able to provide copies of the relevant notices, which were correctly addressed. They also confirmed that the notices had not been returned undelivered. Mr C told us that he had been unaware that he had a duty to inform the council of any change in his circumstances which might affect his benefit claim. We were, however, satisfied that this information was available to claimants, and there was no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to notify Mr C of the overpayment.

Summary

Mr C made an application to the Scottish Welfare Fund for a crisis grant but the council refused this because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C asked for the decision to be reviewed, because he was waiting for his benefit application to be processed. After the review, the council told Mr C the original decision would not change and no award would be made. Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his application. In particular, he said the council's communication was poor; there was an unreasonable delay in processing his second tier review (a further review by a panel who are not part of the Fund team); and the guidance was not followed properly.

We examined what happened in Mr C's case against the relevant guidance from the Scottish Government, and upheld his complaints. Our investigation found that the council did not explain the evidence that Mr C should put forward when requesting a review, and had not responded to the concerns he raised in his request for a review. The guidance says the applicant should understand why a decision has been made. Mr C was also not told when the panel would consider his second tier review or about his right to see the documents that would be considered. The council also accepted there was a delay in processing that review. They said his letter requesting this was misfiled into his housing benefit file. Finally, the council told Mr C his application was refused because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. However, the guidance clearly states the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant is the severity of the applicant's situation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the additional failings identified.

Summary

The council carried out an informal consultation exercise in respect of their schools, looking at a number of options, including possible closures and mergers. Ms C complained that the consultation included her local rural primary school. She said that there was an agreed moratorium (temporary delay) on proceeding with statutory consultations for the closure of such schools and, because of this and a recent legal case, she complained it was not appropriate for the school to be included. She also raised concerns that the council did not consult appropriately with the community and failed to highlight the potential loss of grant funding and increased transport costs when assessing the options.

We noted that the moratorium was in place while the commission for the delivery of rural education carried out a review on the closure of rural schools. However, this related specifically to progressing closures through the formal statutory consultation stage, which was not the case here. The council exercise was a review of their whole school estate and we did not consider it unreasonable that they included this school in that. Any eventual decision to proceed with closure, once the implications of the commission's report and the legal case had been considered, would still need to be taken through the statutory consultation process. Our investigation found that the council's consultation on the future of the school estate was comprehensive, and involved stakeholders such as parent councils as well as surveying the opinions of the general public. We also considered the financial information provided by officers when considering the options, but found no evidence to suggest that they misrepresented the financial case for this school. The impact of any decision on grant funding was clearly detailed in reports and they had included transport costs when assessing the overall potential cost implications.

As we found no evidence to suggest that the council's informal consultation was unreasonable, that the consultation exercise was flawed or that the financial implications for the school were misrepresented, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C objected to a planning application submitted to the council for an extension to a building. He complained to us that the council refused to accept his further representations but allowed the applicant to make some, which he thought was unfair. We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the further submissions from the applicant appeared to have been considered as supporting information, and did not change the nature of the proposal.

Mr C also complained that the council's system for providing public online access to planning documents was faulty, and that it continued to be a problem. Our investigation found that the council had not failed to provide relevant information online, but we suggested that it might be beneficial for them to look at whether their planning portal could be improved. We did find that they failed to acknowledge and respond to an email that Mr C had sent about his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to acknowledge and respond appropriately to his email.