Local Government

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.

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.