Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his repair request after he reported a leaking bath. He told us that the council had installed a new bath at his property, but it moved when he was standing in it to shower. He also said that there was a gap between the bath and the tiles, which allowed water to penetrate. He wanted the council to replace the remaining tiles in his bathroom with waterproof boarding. Mr C said the council had taken too long to come and assess the repair and that the repair they proposed was inadequate.

We found that the council had acted reasonably when Mr C reported dampness in his bathroom. They sent a maintenance officer to the property within two days and decided that the repair Mr C wanted was not warranted. The council offered to repair a section of flooring under the bath and to reseal around the bath, but Mr C had refused to allow this repair to be carried out. When Mr C later reported a leak in the bathroom, the council responded within a day and a leak at the sink was identified and repaired. We found the council had acted reasonably and in accordance with their policy on repairs. We concluded that, although Mr C was entitled to hold and express his view about the kind of repair required, that it was ultimately for the council to determine how best to carry this out.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council charged her for work carried out at her former home after she left it. Our investigation found, however, that Miss C had not in fact complied with the terms of her tenancy agreement when she left the property, and that the council had to resort to their abandonment procedure to bring the tenancy to an end. They found the garden in an unacceptable state and had to carry out works to clear it and make it safe. We found that the council had acted reasonably, and in accordance with their policies and procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's administration of his application for housing benefit was unreasonable. He felt, for various reasons, that they had made unreasonable demands for information from him and his wife. Because their circumstances had changed, he and his wife were asked to complete a case review form. As a result of the information they included on the form, the council asked for further information about the accounts he and his wife had their state pensions paid into. Mr C was unhappy about having to provide them with this and did not send it at first. The council had given an interim award of housing benefit, but stopped it when they did not receive the further information they had requested. When Mr C provided it, the council processed his application and backdated the award.

After considering all the relevant paperwork, we did not find any evidence that the council had administered Mr C's application unreasonably. Under the relevant regulations (the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006), they were entitled to ask for this information. Although there were a couple of instances where the council could have been clearer about the information they wanted, they provided clear and correct information to Mr C at least eight times. Unfortunately, it was the delay in providing the council with that information that caused the delay in him and his wife receiving their housing benefit award.

Summary

Mrs C's council tax benefit claim was identified for review and the council wrote to her asking for information. Mrs C complained about the way they handled the claim, complaining that they had not administered it in line with the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006. She questioned the frequency with which she was being asked to provide payslips, and said she thought that it would be easier to calculate once a year using her P60 and business accounts, in line with the Regulations. She told us that after she complained before, there had been an agreement that she would be assessed every 12 months, but the council had now cancelled the benefit because she questioned why they wanted payslips so frequently. She also questioned why the claim was identified for a review, and the notice period for providing information.

After investigating her concerns, we were satisfied that the council's actions were reasonable and in line with the Regulations and the Department for Work and Pensions best practice guidance. We saw no evidence that anything went wrong in the council's handling of the claim, and considered it was reasonable in the circumstances for the council to request proof of earnings when they did, within the deadlines they did, and that they had explained on a number of occasions why they were doing this. We found that the council took Mrs C's concerns seriously, fully investigated, took appropriate action to try to resolve her complaint, and fully explained their position. Finally, we were satisfied that the council maintained adequate records in connection with the administration of the claim when she complained before