Local Government

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of his client (Mr A), about a planning application for an extension to an existing waste water treatment plant. Mr A lives close to the treatment plant, for which the council granted planning consent. He complained that the council failed to handle the application properly or effectively and had not taken steps to address his concerns or remedy defects that he had identified.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had taken Mr A's objections into account when processing the application. We were also satisfied that there was no evidence of any fault in the handling of the application. However, we noted that the council had accepted that they failed to provide reasons for their decision to grant the application when they issued their decision notice, and had issued an amended notice attaching a copy of the planning report to explain the reasons for the decision. We were concerned that this meant that an interested party would have to read a number of pages to try to and elicit the specific reasons for the decision. We did not consider that this was a reasonable remedy to the original error in the decision notice, and upheld this complaint. As we were, however, generally satisfied that the council's revised procedures have addressed these failings, we made one recommendation to clarify the information on this decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider adding to the website a paragraph paraphrasing the handling report's arguments, to ensure clarity in this case.

Summary

Ms C submitted a planning application to the council. She was concerned about the comments that her neighbours made on the application. She corresponded with the council about this and remained dissatisfied at the end of their complaints procedure. She complained to us that the council had not reasonably responded to her correspondence. However, our investigation considered the correspondence and we found that their responses were reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to remove loose render (a covering of plaster or cement) from the outside of his property without first discussing this with other property owners. He complained that this caused additional damage to the render, cost more than was reasonable and that the council failed to carry out repairs.

The council had explained to Mr C that they received a report from an occupier (who happened to be a council tenant) of render falling from the top flat onto the gardens below. They inspected the site and determined, for safety reasons, that they needed to use their statutory powers to issue an emergency statutory notice and instruct a contractor to make the site safe. The contractor did so by removing patches of loose render. Whilst they acknowledged Mr C's concerns about the amount of render removed, they explained that their contractor had only removed the render he considered unsafe. Our investigation reviewed the council's actions and found that they had acted appropriately, and in line with their statutory duties when addressing this issue.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about a statutory notice that had been served on his property, and for which the council had told him he was now liable. He was unhappy at having to pay as he said he and his solicitors had tried to find out more from the council about this, both before he bought the property and since, without success. He had a lot of communication with the council about this, and was also unhappy with the advice they gave to solicitors acting on his behalf and how they handled his complaint. He was dissatisfied with the council's responses and complained to us.

We found that the council's responses did not reasonably address his complaints, that their responses to his enquiries about the matter had been unreasonable, and they did not make clear what an apology they provided was related to. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise unambiguously to Mr C for the poor standard of their communication with him;
• reflect on how the situation came about that Mr C was advised that a manager would be made aware of his contacts and would return calls as a matter of urgency at a time when he had been on holiday, and whether action requires to be taken to ensure this cannot be repeated; and
• remind all staff to ensure that all matters raised by complainants are clearly acknowledged and responded to at all stages of the process.

Summary

Mr C, who has a disability, complained about the council's handling of his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. In particular, he complained that the items he had requested should have been identified as high priority and that the decision-making in his case was wrong.

Our investigation considered the Scottish Government’s guidance setting out the process for councils to follow. In Mr C's case, the council had explained to him that they had refused his application because they considered that, based on the information he had provided, there was not a risk of him going into care if the grant was refused. Mr C appealed against this but the council confirmed their decision. Mr C then requested a further review of the decision (second tier review), and it was considered by a panel of people of who did not work for the Scottish Welfare Fund team. After the second tier review, the council decided, as there was new medical information, to award him a grant for one of the items he had requested. We noted that the explanations given by the council for their decision could have been better, but we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C and her sister complained to the council about the care of their late mother (Mrs A). They said that when their mother was discharged from hospital a social worker had unreasonably placed her in a locked dementia ward rather than in a unit for frail elderly people. Their distress was compounded when Mrs A was assaulted by other residents. Mrs C then complained to us about the way the council had handled their complaint, as she said that information about the assaults her mother had been subjected to had been withheld from a committee.

We did not uphold the complaint about information, as our investigation found that the committee had access to all the complaints papers including evidence of the assaults that the council accepted that Mrs A had suffered. However, we did find that there had been unreasonable delay in the handling of Mrs C's complaint.

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.