Local Government

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.

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.