Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to properly deal with a complaint made by her neighbour’s tradesman about the condition of Ms C’s property. She raised concerns about eight issues related to the council’s actions. She also complained that the council did not deal properly with her complaint about this.

Our investigation found that the council acted directly on a complaint from a tradesman about the condition of Ms C’s property without first carrying out their own investigations. They, therefore, did not act completely independently. We also found that the council unreasonably failed to tell Ms C about missing and leaking guttering and apparent water staining on the blind on one of her rooms. We were particularly concerned about the council’s lack of record-keeping in this case and addressed this in our recommendations.

On the issue of complaints handling, there was no evidence that the council investigated Ms C’s complaint in line with their own complaints procedure. The evidence also showed that Ms C raised 11 issues in her letter of complaint to the chief executive, which he did not address in his response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide a written apology for failing to test the veracity of the information provided by the tradesman before writing to Ms C, failing to act independently, and unreasonably failing to explain why they thought there was a suspicion of dampness in the property;
• feed back the decision on this complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that, in future, records are made of phone calls from complainants and visits to properties in response to such complaints;
• provide a written apology for failing to investigate the complaint properly; and
• feed back our views on their complaints handling to the members of staff involved.

Summary

Ms C lives in a tenement flat. The space between the tenement in which her flat is situated and the next tenement was occupied by a single storey shop. In December 2004, the owner obtained conditional planning consent to demolish the shop and build a three storey town house in the gap. However, they did not do this and, shortly before planning permission expired, a different applicant applied for planning permission for the site. Under new planning procedures introduced in August 2009, that application should have been taken forward without notifying neighbours of the plans and should have been determined by planning officers under delegated procedures. However, the council did notify neighbours. When Ms C went to see the plans, there were none for the newer application, and the file on the earlier application had been mislaid. The new applicant was apparently unable to provide the council with a copy of the 2004 approval and related plans.

In the first half of 2010, Ms C sent four letters to the council’s planning service. Eventually in May 2011, the council prepared a report of handling about the newer application. In this, Ms C’s letters and those of others were treated as objections to the proposals. The relevant council committee, however, granted planning consent on conditions broadly similar to those in the initial approval. Despite the fact that the 2004 file had not been found, the May 2011 decision said that the development should proceed in accordance with plans submitted and approved in 2004. After Ms C pursued her complaint with the council, in February 2012 a third application was submitted. It was approved in August 2012 on the basis of plans compatible with those submitted in 2009 for a building warrant (which was approved in December 2009).

Ms C’s complaint to us had five elements. We upheld the first of these - that the council unreasonably took 18 months to present the further application to committee for approval - and made two recommendations to address the failings we found. We did not uphold the other four complaints, which related specifically to the report of handling and presentation to the relevant committee in May 2011.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise unreservedly to Ms C for their administrative shortcomings in the handling of the second application; and
• consider their policy with regard to the consequences of lost application plans for effective monitoring and enforcement, especially in the circumstances where a further application for any kind of statutory determination is made to them.

Summary

Mr C had to move from his previous council tenancy and, at short notice, was offered the tenancy of another house in a different town. Mr C said that he, his partner and several friends worked hard to clear his former tenancy and leave it in a tidy state, but admitted that they had left two plastic bags of rubbish in the bathroom. Some seven weeks after the move, the council sent Mr C an invoice for works carried out by a contractor to clear and clean Mr C's former home. Mr C disputed this through a firm of solicitors and then pursued a complaint through the council's procedures. In the interim, the council put the non-payment of the invoice in the hands of recovery agents.

Our investigation found, on balance, that the council had unreasonably issued the invoice. They had taken digital images some two weeks after Mr C moved out, but these were undated and did not conclusively identify the property. Mr C maintained that several of the images (which the council disclosed following an information request) were not of his former home. We also found that the council did not deal reasonably with Mr C’s complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reconsider in the light of information from our investigation whether there are grounds to reduce the sum claimed in their invoice;
• ensure that when digital images are taken on termination of a tenancy, these are imprinted with the date and a means of verifying that date and identifying the property; and
• apologise to Mr C for their shortcomings in handling his complaint.

Summary

When a school was rebuilt, a new glass fronted entrance area and carpark were created opposite Mr C's house. He found that security lights and internal lights shone into his house throughout the night, disrupting his sleep, and he complained to the council. Although it was agreed that timers would be used to ensure that the lights only came on at certain times, Mr C told us that these arrangements were not implemented at first and, when they later were, they were not adhered to. Some of the lights were also controlled by motion sensors, and were set off by animals at all hours of the night. Mr C did not feel that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to his concerns.

We found, however, that the council had taken Mr C's concerns seriously and that they took steps to minimise the impact on him. Initially this involved altering the hours during which the lights operated but, when the problem persisted, the council arranged for a lighting survey to be carried out to establish whether the lights caused a statutory nuisance. The survey concluded that, during normal operation, the light levels were significantly below the required maximum level and after 21:30, the maximum lighting level was lower. The lights could exceed the maximum level after 21:30, but the council were satisfied that, as they would only come on occasionally when triggered by a motion sensor, this was acceptable. We were satisfied that the council had appropriately assessed the situation and had made decisions about the lighting levels and hours of operation taking account of Mr C's concerns and those of school staff.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's social work services child protection procedures. Mr C was unhappy about the action taken by social work services leading up to a child protection case conference, and about the accuracy of a social work report prepared for the case conference. Mr C also raised concerns about the way the council handled his complaint about this.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow child protection procedures in handling this case, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints about this. We did find that they had failed to include all relevant information on their client system, and that some information had not been recorded accurately. However, the council had taken action to address this, so we did not make any recommendations about this. We also found that the council had failed to handle Mr C's representations in line with their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their handling of Mr C's initial complaint; and
• ensure that statements are obtained from all participants when handling a complaint relating to an interview that involves a number of departments and/or agencies.

Summary

Since Mrs C and her family moved into a council flat, she had complained about noise from a neighbour. After one particular incident, she applied for rehousing, supported by her GP and health visitor. A multi-agency case conference considered the circumstances of her request, but decided not to award social housing points that would have given her higher priority for a move. Mrs C continued to complain about noise and other disturbances. She pursued a formal complaint through the council’s complaints procedures, then complained to us that the council had unreasonably failed to take action on her complaints of anti-social behaviour.

Our investigation found that the council had monitored the noise twice, but did not find it to be at levels that constituted a statutory nuisance. An acoustic test found that impact noise insulation levels did not meet current building standards, but as these would have complied at the time the houses were built the council decided to take no action. Mrs C and her husband were made the offer of another property but declined it as unsuitable. We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint, as our investigation found that the reports of noise had been properly recorded and appropriately investigated.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A who were council tenants experiencing noise disturbance from their neighbours. Although council officers visited the house, their visits did not coincide with times when the neighbours were being noisy, and they concluded that the noise levels were not significant enough to be classed as anti-social. They later provided noise monitoring equipment, but again found the noise levels too low to be considered a nuisance. The council suggested several times that Mr and Mrs A go to mediation with their neighbours to try to resolve this. However, Mr and Mrs A were advised not to do so, on medical grounds. Instead, the council arranged for shuttle mediation, where the mediator meets with both parties separately. Mr C complained that the council did not take Mr and Mrs A's complaints seriously, failed to record their concerns and did not take effective action to resolve the situation. He also complained that he was refused access to the results of the noise monitoring surveys.

We acknowledged that situations such as this are difficult to resolve. Mr and Mrs A were clearly badly affected by the noise. However, for the council to take decisive action, they needed corroboration of the problem and evidence that the noise was at a level that would be considered anti-social. We were provided with records kept by Mr and Mrs A and witness statements that provided general corroboration of the problem, but did not confirm specific incidents or the severity of the noise. Where proof was available, however, our investigation found there was evidence that the council took action. We were generally satisfied that they took reasonable steps to investigate the noise, and we noted that they also considered whether there was a problem with the construction of the properties. Whether or not the noise was anti-social was a matter for the professional judgement of the council's noise officers and we were satisfied that they reached a reasoned decision.

We were, however, critical of the council for failing to fully explain the anti-social behaviour policy to Mr and Mrs A and for not recording the outcome of their complaints. Mr and Mrs A made more than 400 noise complaints, and we considered that better communication from the council could have significantly reduced this. With regard to Mr C's complaint that the council did not provide the noise monitoring reports, we found that these were technical and needed specialist interpretation. As such, we felt that the summarised information provided to Mr C was reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of Mr and Mrs A's complaints with a view to identifying better ways to explain their anti-social behaviour policy and investigations to complainants; and
• remind their staff of the importance of following up complaints of anti-social behaviour and clearly recording the decision reached on each complaint brought to them.

Summary

Ms C raised her concern about the consultation carried out by the council before they installed street furniture, in particular a bench opposite her home. She said that they unreasonably failed to consult with the appropriate council departments, the community council and residents affected, and that they had misled her when responding to her representations about this. Ms C maintained that there had been no consultation.

During our investigation we found that the council were not required to consult with any groups when deciding to locate street furniture. In this case, however, there had been discussions between relevant council officers and the council also maintained that there was consultation with the community council and further discussions with members of the community council. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's views and did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the planning situation at a neighbouring site. Planning permission had been granted in 2000 for a new workshop there, but during its construction his neighbour had continued to work out of a wooden shed. Mr C was concerned that the council had failed to take effective enforcement action in relation to industrial processes being carried out in the shed, which continued after the new workshop was completed.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had investigated his concerns and had decided not to take enforcement action. Following completion of the new workshop Mr C's neighbour voluntarily decided to submit a retrospective planning application in relation to the wooden shed. Permission was refused because it would have an adverse impact upon residential amenity. We recognised that Mr C had reasonably expected the council to take enforcement action following the refusal of this application. However, they could not do so as the shed had by that time been in continuous use for more than ten years and so was exempt from enforcement action. We also found that the council had investigated complaints about noise from the shed, but had decided to take no action as they had been unable to establish that it was a statutory noise nuisance.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, we were concerned that because the council had not applied a time limit condition to the original planning consent, it took over ten years for the workshop to be completed, and was then too late for enforcement action about the shed. Because of this we made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that, where applicable and appropriate, time limits for the commencement and completion of development are considered in the application of planning conditions to ensure effective planning control in cases of possible ongoing neighbourhood disturbance; and
• if any further complaints of noise nuisance at the site are received the council ensure appropriate noise monitoring is carried out.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy about the way the council dealt with planning issues in connection with a neighbouring property and access rights to Mr C's own property. In particular, Mr C was concerned that a breach of a planning condition had been ongoing for a number of years.

During our investigation we confirmed that, as Mr C's concerns about access rights had been the subject of court action, we could not become involved in that. On his other complaints, we found that, although the council had considered and decided against formal enforcement action on the planning condition, there had been periods where no active monitoring of the site had taken place and we upheld that element of Mr C's complaint. We did not, however, find evidence that the council were treating the neighbouring site more favourably than they were Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified; and
• ensure that the open enforcement cases continue to be proactively monitored and without breaching confidentiality, keep Mr C advised of progress.