Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that a school had unreasonably excluded her child. She also complained that they offered a mediation session to allow her to discuss this but, when she went to it staff refused to listen to her side of the story or to allow her child to attend. She was also unhappy about the way the council dealt with her complaint about this.

The council said that they had offered the mediation session to ensure that appropriate support was in place to allow her child to return to school and that they had made clear to Mrs C that the meeting was not held to discuss the exclusion. They also said that they had dealt with her subsequent complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

We found that, although the council offered the mediation meeting in order to try and ensure that Mrs C's child returned to school as quickly as possible and were trying to help resolve this, they incorrectly told Mrs C that the mediation meeting and complaint were an alternative to the appeals process. This was not the case, and there is a separate statutory process that considers appeals against school exclusions. We concluded that the council provided Mrs C with misleading information. In terms of her complaint, we found no evidence to suggest that the school failed to take her concerns seriously or failed to investigate every allegation she made. We did, however, conclude that they failed to address all her complaints as they had said that they could not look at new issues she raised with them after concluding her original complaints. As a result of these failings, we upheld her complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the misleading advice;
• ensure that they respond to all points of complaint and that any new and separate issues are duly investigated; and
• inform Mrs C of the steps she should take if she still wishes to formally appeal against her child's exclusion, making sure they fully explain what this process will involve.

Summary

Mrs C's child had suffered verbal abuse, physical assault and bullying on social media. Mrs C complained that the school did not follow anti-bullying policies, and that the council's policy did not provide adequate protection. She said that the school and the council had not taken enough steps to protect her child. The council responded that they were reviewing their policy, but that was a year after Mrs C had first raised her concerns.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint and made a number of recommendations, as our investigation found that policy and procedures were not followed, no action had been taken in relation to evidence of bullying on social media, and evidence of a serious incident had not been kept. We also found that the council had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the adequacy of their anti-bullying policy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not ensuring that anti-bullying policy and procedures were followed;
• review anti-bullying staff training in light of the potential abuse of social media and actions that staff should take in such cases to ensure all staff are clear about their responsibilities when bullying is reported;
• consider how they could encourage schools to use specific incidents of bullying as learning opportunities for pupils within the curriculum;
• share the findings of our investigation with relevant staff; and
• consider the adequacy of their anti-bullying policy and their advice to schools.

Summary

Miss C complained to us because she was dissatisfied with the way the council had investigated her complaints about a teacher at her son’s former school.  She said that her son had been bullied, and was not satisfied that the school were doing enough to recognise the problem.  Miss C had since placed her son in another school.  Although the council had said he could return to the original school, she felt that this could not happen without an apology from the teacher, and recognition by the council of their fault in the way they handled the matter.  The complaint that we looked at, however, was only about how the council handled the matter, as we are excluded from looking directly into the internal affairs in an educational establishment run by a local authority.

We did not uphold Miss C’s complaints.  She said that the council’s investigation was flawed in failing to answer any of her questions about the way she had been treated by the teacher, but we saw nothing to suggest that procedures were not properly followed, or that there was any omission in the response she was given.  Miss C was concerned that the council’s investigating officer did not tell her that she was about to leave the council, but the council told us that there was no reason for the member of staff to do so.  We agreed that this was the case, and that the investigation was conducted thoroughly.  It was completed in a short time scale, and this too had caused Miss C concern, but again we found no suggestion that this had any effect on the quality of the investigation.  She also felt that she should have been given an opportunity to discuss the council’s findings but we found that they had correctly signposted her to us under their complaints procedure, after they completed their investigation.

Summary

The owners of the yard next to Mr C's house submitted a planning application for the replacement and relocation of their boiler house and drying kilns. Mr C complained that, although the application was approved with conditions attached to the permission, the council failed to enforce those conditions. He said that as a consequence he had suffered horrendous noise levels. Mr C alleged that the council failed to assess the impact of the planning consent on his home, failed to follow the correct procedures and pursue enforcement action, and failed to assess his subsequent complaint properly.

The complaint was investigated and we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We made further enquiries of the council, and gave all the relevant information (including planning documentation and all the complaints correspondence) careful consideration. The planning adviser said that the council acted reasonably and early by ensuring that a noise impact assessment report was obtained for the proposed development and was reflected in the conditions attached to the planning permission. When some of the conditions were not met, the council considered taking enforcement action but decided that it would be more appropriate to have their environmental health department lead on the matter of noise nuisance. The planning adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable decision, as enforcement action is discretionary and the environmental health department could use statutory measures to address matters that might otherwise be outside the scope of the planning authority. He noted that the council had retained the option of taking enforcement action should they wish to pursue it in the future.

Mr C undoubtedly suffered noise nuisance and we found that the council acted on his complaints about this, although not in the way he would have wished. We did not uphold his complaint, as it could not be said that they did not understand his complaint or failed properly to assess it.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of planning consents for a site next to his property. Four different consents were approved, including permission for the developer to have a static caravan on the site during construction work. However, the developer kept a caravan on site, in the wrong location, without carrying out any of the approved work. Mr C complained that the council failed to use their enforcement powers to have the caravan removed. He also complained that the council deliberately delayed in responding to his correspondence.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who explained that enforcement action cannot be taken about planning conditions until such time as the relevant consent is implemented by work starting on the site. As no work had started, it was questionable whether there were any grounds to take enforcement action. Despite this, the council served an enforcement notice requiring removal of the caravan by September 2015. Mr C was dissatisfied with this, as the original consent required the caravan to be removed by December 2012. However, as the caravan was allowed on site during construction, and the developer had until September 2015 to commence construction work (which is when the consent expires), we were satisfied that the council had reached a fair and reasoned decision. We were also satisfied that the council responded to Mr C's correspondence in reasonable time.

Summary

Miss C and her partner are in receipt of council tax benefit. The council notified Miss C that she had council tax arrears from three years before of more than £1700, which had to be paid within seven days. When she contacted the council they told her that the arrears had arisen because she and her partner had not told the council about a change in their household income at that time, resulting in an overpayment of council tax benefit. Miss C complained to us about the way the council handled her enquiries. She said that she was not reassured that the council were taking steps to improve their customer services, although they agreed that she had not received an acceptable standard of service. Miss C wanted an assurance that the council were committed to providing a valid, user friendly and reliable service.

We examined the original demand notices issued to Miss C and her partner and found that there had been various changes to the amounts demanded because of changes to their benefit entitlement, but nothing to suggest that the arrears had arisen from an error on the council's part. We were satisfied from our investigation that the council had looked into the matter properly under their complaints procedure, had identified that there had been shortcomings in their customer service, and had made a commitment to improve certain areas. Although some of these changes were not yet in place, we were assured that in the long term the council were committing a significant amount of money to radically improve the ways a customer would be able to access council services. These included more efficient online services and a review of business processes to ensure that they were customer focused. On the understanding that it would be relatively easy to provide further information to the public through the council's website, we asked them to consider taking steps in the short term to provide additional information about the full options available where payment of council tax is outstanding.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of his planning application to convert a disused farm steading to provide five houses. He said they pursued two separate breach of condition notices in respect of land contamination without seeking the agreement of their planning panel, contrary to both the published enforcement charter and planning advice on enforcement. He also said that they did not respond adequately to requests for meetings and discussions, that council correspondence was misleading and misrepresentative and that he had to make an unnecessary waiver application. Mr C also said the council unreasonably issued letters of comfort (a document provided to satisfy a buyer that the local authority will not take action to have work remedied) to two property owners whilst at the same time pursuing him for a breach of condition notice for the entire site, and failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with their complaints procedure.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints, as the adviser took the view that, in general, the council dealt with the planning matters appropriately. He did point out some areas where the council's actions had been less appropriate, for example where, although it was clearly Mr C's responsibility to comply with contaminated land conditions, the council did not take appropriate action to ensure compliance with the conditions before the houses were sold on. The adviser also said that the chief planning officer's failure to refer (in a letter to Mr C) to a letter of comfort for the fourth house was a significant oversight and meant that the letter misrepresented the situation. Although critical of the omission in the council's letter we were not, however, satisfied that this in itself required Mr C to submit a waiver application at that time.

We did uphold Mr C's complaint about the complaints handling, as we found that it would have been reasonable for the chief executive's office to have passed Mr C's complaint to the head of service in order to help move things on rather than telling Mr C to send a further letter himself. It was also clear that the chief executive's reply was sent to Mr C well outwith the timescale in the council's complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that, in future, owners of properties subject to a breach of condition notice are properly informed as provided for in Circular 10/2009;
• review their communications between the departments involved to ensure adequate follow-up of planning conditions in future;
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the omission in the chief planning officer's letter; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to pass his letter of complaint to the head of service and for failing to acknowledge receipt of his letter within the timescale set out in their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to reschedule road resurfacing work. He complained that they had not recorded the feedback on which their decision was based, or recorded the decision. Our investigation, however, found no evidence that the council had any obligation to record every piece of feedback received or every operational decision made.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his claim for compensation after he damaged his suit on a protruding screw in a council-owned building. He also complained about their decision to limit the sum they agreed to pay him to the cost of replacing his jacket, rather than the whole suit, about their failure to respond to email correspondence, about the reasons they gave for delay in progressing his claim and said there was a failure to respond to his complaint accurately and promptly.

We found that there was a delay in assessing his claim. The reason for this was the delay in receiving witness statements from the local service. Because of this delay, and because they failed to meet their own time targets, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. We found that the council did respond fully, and accurately, to his complaint. However, because they failed to advise him how to progress it to the next stage, and at the final stage failed to meet their own timescales, we also upheld this aspect of his complaint. As, however, the council acknowledged and apologised for both delays, and as they have now introduced a new complaints process, we made no recommendations.

Although Mr C was dissatisfied with the amount the council agreed to pay to compensate him, we agreed with the council that the complaints process was not the way to challenge this, as the question of legal liability is one for the courts to consider.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to follow the appropriate tendering and procurement process for communal repairs to her close. She said that they had ignored a report requiring them to re-tender due to a lack of competitive quotes, as only two of the four companies approached had responded. She also said that the council costs were far higher than her privately obtained quotes, and that they had misled her by asking her to submit quotes that could not in fact be used as the suppliers were not on the council's approved list of contractors.

Our investigation found that the council had already apologised for the confusion about which contractors could form part of the tendering process, and had produced a new information leaflet, setting out the statutory repair process clearly for private residents. We also found that although the report on the tendering process recommended re-tendering, there was no requirement for the council to accept this, and that re-tendering could have resulted in higher costs. We did, however, criticise the council for poor record-keeping, as the decision-making audit trail was unclear.