Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not allocated the correct number of housing points to his re-housing application. He thought that this had been done deliberately by either ignoring his application, or flagging it in order to obstruct it.

As part of our investigation we reviewed the relevant legislation and the council's housing allocation policy, which is based on the legislation. We found no evidence that Mr C's application was not treated appropriately, equitably and according to the policy. We noted that certain factors that affect housing applications are discretionary (ie they are for the housing provider to decide), such as the condition of the property the applicant is living in when they apply, and whether an applicant has any medical needs, medical conditions or social needs that affect their housing requirements. As these are for the housing provider to decide, it is not for us to say whether the points the council allocated for any or all of these factors were correct in Mr C’s case. We can only investigate whether they had been taken into consideration. We found that, where appropriate in Mr C’s application, these discretionary factors had been considered. On non-discretionary factors, such as overcrowding and size of family, our investigation found that, based on the information supplied by Mr C on his housing application, the council had appropriately allocated points according to their policy.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a Local Review Board (LRB) set up to consider an appeal against refusal of a planning application was not properly constituted; that the minutes of the LRB meeting did not accurately reflect the what happened at the meeting; that the council did not adequately investigate her complaint about this; and that the council did not take appropriate action on the failings that their investigation found.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the LRB had been properly constituted under transitional arrangements put into place by the council. It took place about a month after an election at which some elected members who were trained to sit on LRBs were not returned to office or had retired. The transitional arrangements allowed all members who were trained to sit on the LRB, regardless of the ward they represented or whether there was more than one representative from a ward. We found that these arrangements were reasonable and that the LRB was both quorate (the required minimum number of people were there) and competent. Mrs C had also expressed concerns that the investigation into her complaint was conducted by a council employee, who might be biased in favour of their employer. Our investigation found the investigation was reasonable and appropriate and found no evidence of bias. We also found that the council took appropriate and robust remedial action where failings were identified.

We did, however, uphold the complaint about the minutes of the meeting. These did not adequately reflect the information placed before the LRB or its decision. The meeting considered 14 separate applications, and the background papers ran to over 4,000 pages. The documentation for this particular application accounted for over half those pages, within which were 293 objections either to the original application or to the appeal. These were not indexed and no mention of them was made in the minutes. It was, therefore, not clear what the members knew, did not know or discussed at the meeting, which is unacceptable. The minutes also referred to planning permission being granted but then referred to a condition that had to be complied with 'before planning permission is granted', which was confusing and inappropriate. Our adviser was concerned that some conditions were so poorly worded that they gave no idea of what was to be expected, and would not have been enforceable. Finally, the condition upon which approval was dependent required the agreement of a third party over which neither the applicant nor the council had any control. Our adviser said this was inappropriate and did not comply with national guidance on the work of LRBs.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider re-convening the LRB.

Summary

Mr C made a large number of complaints against the council in relation to a building in which he owned a flat. The council owned two flats in the building, but were not the majority owner. We determined that most of the complaints related to the obligations of owners under the title deeds, which we could not investigate. We did look at Mr C's concerns that the council had failed to investigate or respond properly to allegations of anti-social behaviour against one of their residents, had failed to enforce parking restrictions outside the property and were allowing a nearby business to use the property's residential wheelie bin, leading to problems with rubbish spilling onto the street.

After investigating the actions taken by the council, including their investigation into Mr C's complaints, we did not uphold the complaint. We found that the council had acted in line with their published policies and procedures and there was no evidence that they had failed to take action in response to Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs A’'s daughter (Miss A) has severe and complex additional support needs. Her enrolment in a school and experiences there presented challenges for all parties involved. Mrs C, an advocacy worker, complained to the council on Mr and Mrs A's behalf about various actions by the school in relation to their daughter's enrolment. At the end of the council’s complaints procedure, the chief executive accepted that some actions had been unreasonable, and upheld parts of the complaints. However, the chief executive did not accept that these actions represented discrimination, as Mr and Mrs A had alleged. Mr and Mrs A were dissatisfied with aspects of the council’s handling of their complaints and raised this with us.

We found that the council had taken an unreasonable length of time to respond, failed to apologise to Mr and Mrs A for the elements that were upheld and failed to advise Mr and Mrs A of the actions taken as a result of their complaints. Mrs C also complained that the council had unreasonably failed to respond to a particular part of the correspondence, but we did not uphold that complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs A - that they were not reasonably updated about the progress of their complaints during the final stage of the council’s complaints procedure; that a letter was not responded to within a reasonable time; for those parts of their complaints that were previously upheld; and for failing to advise them of the actions taken to address those parts of their complaints that were upheld;
• review their complaints handling processes to ensure that updates are provided without complainants having to approach the council, and that the provision of verbal updates is recorded;
• review their complaints handling processes to ensure consideration is given in each case as to whether apologies are appropriate;
• review their handling of Mr and Mrs A’'s complaints to find out why such serious issues were not upheld at the first stage of their complaints process, and consider whether all relevant learning has been identified;
• review their complaints handling practice to ensure that the requirements of sections 7.11 and 8.6 of their complaints handling process are undertaken in all appropriate cases; and
• consider whether appropriate learning is identified and available for staff regarding equality and diversity.

Summary

Ms C alleged that while her son was in his first year at primary school he suffered repeated physical assaults from another child. She complained that, despite her formal complaint, the council failed to take appropriate action and she had to move her son to another school.

To investigate the complaint, we took all the available information from Ms C and the council into account, including the complaints file and correspondence, and the relevant council policies. Our investigation confirmed that over a period of almost six months there had been numerous incidents. However, Ms C's child was not always the victim - on occasion he had been the perpetrator; or the incidents were accidents or involved numerous children. Each time, there was evidence to show that the council took the matter seriously and took appropriate action with reference to the sanctions and advice in their policy. From the next five months there were no incidents reported, but then an event involving a number of children took place. Ms C's son then made a statement to a teacher that resulted in child protection procedures being invoked. Almost immediately afterwards, Ms C removed her son from the school, and he was later transferred to another. As the evidence showed that the council did act on each reported incident, we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C had also complained to the council about the way they had handled her concerns. We upheld her complaint to us about this, as our investigation showed that the procedures applied in responding did not clearly reflect the council's policy. One reply was inconclusive and other letters appeared to show that the council had investigated matters outwith their control, Similarly, a complaint of bullying was only partially upheld despite clear evidence that it had taken place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology to Ms C for failing to handle her complaint appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his family over his dissatisfaction with the council’s investigation into a complaint made about an incident at his daughter’s school sports day. His dissatisfaction was based on his belief that it was partial, questioned the veracity of the family’s account, and did not address the key concerns which had been raised.

Our investigation found that Mr C’s complaint had been investigated properly at both stages of the council’s complaints procedure. The council had considered relevant information, including witness statements, and had interviewed Mr C and his wife. The council had concluded that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding, which had been resolved with the apology offered at the time, and took into account that since the event Mr C’s daughter had changed school and was happy with the move.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to properly investigate his complaints about what he considered to be dangerous fuel handling and storage by a boat operator at the local harbour. He complained that the council had sufficient evidence to show that the boat operator was storing large quantities of fuel at the harbour in inappropriate containers, and was not taking reasonable steps to ensure safe refuelling of his vessels.

We examined the evidence and found that the council were actively investigating the reports. They had reminded the boat operator of his responsibilities in terms of fuel safety and were monitoring the situation through the CCTV system. The council also prepared a code of conduct which they expect all boat operators to follow, and were in the process of recruiting a seasonal harbour master to monitor both adherence to the code of conduct and boat safety. As a result of the steps taken by the council, we were satisfied they had acted appropriately following receipt of Mr C's concerns about the unsafe handling of fuel.

Summary

Mr C represents a number of local residents opposed to an ongoing planning application. He wrote to the council with concerns about the lack of a transport assessment in relation to the application. Mr C did not believe the council had responded to his letter. When the council clarified the items of correspondence that they believed responded to the letter, Mr C was dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us.

After discussing this with Mr C we decided that the only matter we could consider was the failure to address points in his letter. We tried to resolve this with the council, but Mr C remained dissatisfied and resubmitted his complaint to us. We decided that the council had not reasonably addressed some of the concerns Mr C had raised and that it was unreasonable that they had not identified this until we became involved.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C that their responses to his letter and subsequent related contact were not reasonable;
• provide a reasonable response to Mr C's enquiries; and
• review their practice to ensure that correspondence querying the relevance of their complaint responses is properly considered without the need for SPSO involvement.

Summary

Mrs C rents out a flat, which she purchased over ten years ago. Three years after she bought it, the council issued an invoice for an emergency repair to the building. The statutory notice that they had given about this repair pre-dated her purchase, and Mrs C’s solicitors told her that this was not in the information provided by the council during a search before she bought the flat. When her solicitors contacted the collection company dealing with the debt, they were told that the council had withdrawn the account. No further requests for payment were made.

More recently, during conveyancing for another property, Mrs C discovered that the council had taken legal action against her for payment of the old invoice. She paid this, but complained to the council that she was not liable, and that they had not contacted her about it before pursuing payment. The council refunded the expenses, interest and fees involved, but refused to also refund the amount of the original invoice for the repair. Mrs C complained to us that the council were unreasonably refusing to do so.

Our investigation found that the council made the payment as a goodwill gesture, in recognition of their mistakes in handling the invoice, including sending it to the wrong address. However, Mrs C was held liable for the amount of the repair because, although she was not the person on whom the statutory notice was originally served, she owned the property when the council issued the account. Any failure in the search undertaken when Mrs C bought the flat was for her to take up with her legal representative, as it appeared that her solicitors did not pursue this with the council when this became known. We did not find that the council had issued the invoice incorrectly, but we did think that they should have explained why a refund for the invoice was not given.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• formally apologise to Mrs C; and
• review the handling of her complaint and whether any lessons can be learned to improve procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council had responded to his representations to have tall trees on council land neighbouring his property trimmed. He was concerned that the trees could be dangerous in high winds, and that they blocked daylight into his property. The council had at one point told him that they would trim or remove trees that were not the subject of a tree preservation order (TPO). When, however, he complained that this had not happened, the council told him that all the trees in the area were in fact the subject of the TPO, and could not be touched. Mr C pursued his complaint, as he believed that the council could trim the trees for maintenance purposes, and was dissatisfied when the council maintained their position and would not trim the trees.

Our investigation found that the council had properly explained to Mr C that they could not trim the trees as it would be an offence to reduce the height of or remove branches from healthy mature trees that were subject to a TPO. The council acknowledged that Mr C had safety concerns about the trees, but said they had been inspected and there was no evidence of disease that might mean they posed a danger. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found no fault in the council’s handling of the matter, although we did think that they could have told Mr C earlier that the TPO applied to the whole area, rather than to individual trees. However, we decided that there were no grounds to pursue the matter further, noting that the council have arranged for their forestry manager to inspect the trees each year, and that they will take immediate action if any tree or branch shows evidence of disease.