Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained that he and his wife (Mrs C) had experienced antisocial behaviour from their neighbours for a number of years. This included dog barking and noise. They were unhappy that the council had not taken action against these neighbours. Mr and Mrs C were also unhappy about a warning letter that the council sent to them about their own behaviour in 2009. They said they had not seen this and were unaware of it until 2011. Mr C felt that it had been issued without proper investigation and in the absence of any evidence against them.

In our investigation we considered events from 2008 onwards. We considered the council's response to our detailed enquiries, and how they had dealt with Mr and Mrs C's complaint. We reviewed their investigations and examined relevant policies and procedures, including the council's antisocial behaviour policy, keeping of pets policy and complaints procedure.

Having considered all this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's actions or the warning letter. We found that they appropriately investigated Mr C's complaints according to their antisocial behaviour policies and took adequate action about his complaint. 
We also found that the warning letter had been correctly issued.

However, our investigation revealed that the council had not followed the relevant sections of the keeping of pets policy that related to keeping more than one pet. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint about the lack of explanation of the situation regarding the neighbours' dogs.

Recommendations
We recommended that the Council:

• ensure that Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the keeping of pets policy are correctly followed;
• give us an update on the number of pets authorised (following the keeping of pets policy) to remain in the neighbours' property; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failures in both adhering to the keeping of pets policy and the council delay, to acknowledge Mr and Mrs C's concerns about this aspect in their initial complaint.
   

Summary

Mrs C's daughter and her classmates participated in a swimming lesson given by a council swimming instructor at a local leisure facility managed by a leisure company. Her daughter was asked to repeat a task in front of the class and was left upset. Mrs C and her husband pursued an initial informal complaint, then took the complaint fully through the council's complaints procedures.

Our investigation upheld their complaint that the council failed to deal with the complaint properly at the informal stage, but we made no recommendation as the council had recognised the deficiencies in the initial complaints handling, and had put in place several measures to avoid this happening again. We found that the council's handling of the formal complaint had been thorough and transparent and relevant witnesses had been interviewed. Although the timescale in which they responded had exceeded stated targets, on balance we did not find that the council had failed to deal with those complaints in line with their policy.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not adequately investigated her complaint about how school and council staff dealt with her concerns about a meeting she attended to discuss the welfare of her son.

Our investigation found that the council had not clarified what her complaint was, and had not appointed an independent objective investigating officer. There was little evidence of how the council had investigated her concerns and they had not clearly signposted the stages of their complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not carrying out a reasonable investigation and for not following their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a large scale dairy milking facility near his home. He said that the council had dealt with the application in a similar to way to that of a domestic planning application, which he did not consider appropriate given the scale of the facility. He was also of the view that the council had failed to properly assess the impact, in terms of noise, visibility and odour, that the development would have on his property. He also complained that the council did not notify him about the planning application.

Our investigation found that, as his property did not directly border the development, the council were not required to notify him of the application. We also found that they advertised it in the local paper, fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of the planning regulations. The planning department had also consulted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and their own environmental health department before granting consent. We noted that the developer had sought permission for a number of planning applications, each of which was of a scale which would be considered a local development in planning terms. As we found no evidence to suggest that the council had acted outwith their own procedures or legal responsibilities, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C had been a council tenant, but when his tenancy was terminated he was unable to store his belongings. The council had a statutory duty to protect his property as he was considered homeless, so they arranged for this to be packed up and taken into storage. They told him that they would pay the storage costs for him, but he would be liable to repay these when he was able to do so. Mr C was given a new council tenancy some five months later, and the council had the property taken out of storage and delivered to him. They also paid the fees for this, then re-charged all the costs to him. Mr C disputed the charges, saying that they were more than the fees quoted on the agreement, and queried the invoice from the removal firm that delivered the property to him. He had contacted the firm and was quoted a fee of £55 per hour and was told the job would probably only have taken about three hours. The council had charged him £291.50.

Our investigation found that the amounts re-charged to Mr C were the amounts the council had paid on his behalf. The agreement made it clear that the fees quoted were based on using one storage unit, but Mr C's property had taken more space than that. Similarly, the invoice from the removal firm added up to four hours work at the rate quoted to Mr C, plus VAT and insurance. It is not for us to decide if the amount charged by the firm was correct and we considered it reasonable for the council to re-charge Mr C for what they had paid on his behalf. We also noted that the legislation covering such matters allows for re-charging.

Mr C also complained that some of his property was missing. Some was found when Mr C brought this to the council's attention. Some property was damaged and the council had accepted Mr C's estimate of replacement costs and reduced the amount he owed them by this amount. Some items were not found but did not appear on the inventory taken when Mr C's property was packed up. We could not find out what had happened to these, but we did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence to prove that they were lost or stolen while in the safekeeping of the council. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate these matters and had responded appropriately about them.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his council tax account, in particular in relation to his application for empty property exemption. His complaints were about communication, updating addresses on the council's system and failure to take action to ensure errors made in his case were not repeated.

During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Mr C's initial enquiries about empty property exemption, but then delayed in taking action after he asked whether his property was exempt on the grounds that it was uninhabitable. The council had also accepted prior to our involvement that they should not have applied for a summary warrant for unpaid council tax, as the demand notice and reminder issued were incorrectly addressed. We found no evidence that emails or phone calls were not responded to, but did find that the council had incorrectly addressed correspondence. However, as we were satisfied that before we became involved they had already taken some action and proposed to take more, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's late mother (Mrs A) was a council tenant before her death, and he complained to us about the way the council had handled a request for his mother's carer to move into the house shortly before his mother died. Although the request appeared to come from his mother, he told us that she had dementia and that the council did not establish if she had the capacity to make this decision when they allowed the carer to move in. He was also unhappy with the way the council handled the situation when, after his mother died, the carer was allowed to succeed to the tenancy.

As it was clear that the council knew that Mrs A had dementia, we were concerned that they accepted the request without making certain specific checks. We took the view that this meant they had failed to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable tenant and we upheld this part of the complaint. The council told us that it was impossible to say whether a further check would have changed the decision in this case. They apologised, however, that their procedure was not as robust as it could have been. They agreed to revise their procedures to provide guidance and ensure that in future there would be a home visit and further checks before a carer could move in. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to follow the correct procedure in handling the succession to the tenancy.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the interim arrangements are now in place and that the new policy and guidance is completed and in place as soon as possible.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not notified him of two separate planning applications (one from 2009, the other from 2012) for neighbouring properties. In their response to his complaint, the council explained that it had been the applicant's responsibility to notify neighbours for the 2009 application. However, by the time the second application was submitted, the duty to notify had moved from the applicant to the council.

In terms of the 2009 application, the council explained that they did not have a duty to 'look beyond' the applicant's self-certification, nor had there been anything in the paperwork that would reasonably have caused the planning officer to question things. In terms of 2012, the council explained that they had advertised the planning application in the local newspaper and that notice had been served on one of Mr C's tenants (who lived on a property on Mr C's land). Although the tenant passed the notification on to Mr C and he had been able to submit his objections, Mr C felt that, in both instances, the council had failed in their duty, and he was not happy with the way they had handled his complaint about this.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He reviewed the council's responses and confirmed that they had outlined the position correctly, and had taken the appropriate steps in 2012. As such, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to notify him. Neither did we find that the council had handled his complaint inappropriately. Although they had taken longer than they would aim to in responding to Mr C's complaint, their responses had reasonably addressed his concerns, and they had contacted him to let him know that the matter was still ongoing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• confirm the changes made to their website and standard notification letter, as detailed in their stage 1 response.
• 

Summary

Miss C was unhappy that the council had failed to comply with recommendations made by a social work complaints review sub-committee. She said the council should have notified a sheriff that there were errors in a contact and residence report prepared by a social worker, which was submitted to the court. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the sub-committee only made one recommendation and that was for social work to review their processes.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with a planning application in line with the appropriate procedures and to appropriately take his objections into account. He also said that they failed to respond reasonably to his enquiries or deal with his complaint appropriately.

Our investigation found that the council had dealt with the planning application in line with its published scheme of delegation and that the decision was properly made. The report produced by the planning officer dealt appropriately with the objections received and the council had provided two detailed responses to Mr C's complaints. Although there were minor errors in the handling of the complaint, the council had identified and apologised for these, and there was no evidence that they had affected the council's decision.