Local Government

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 When her solicitors contacted the collection company dealing with the debt, they were told that the council had withdrawn the account.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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about a proposal by the developer of an adjacent site to vary a planning consent. Planning officers had regarded the proposal to vary the consent previously issued (to convert a former school to a care home and construct an extension) as a non-material variation (a material variation is a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest). The officers approved it as a delegated decision without reference to the relevant council committee.

In dealing with the complaint, the council accepted that although the request to vary did not raise new planning issues, and more windows in the new extension would overlook Mr and Mrs C’s rear garden, a corner of the extension had been brought forward 70 centimetres closer to the boundary than the council’s published guidance. In that regard, the request to vary should not have been dealt with as a non-material variation. In light of the council’s acceptance of their error, we upheld the complaint and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the criteria for non-material variation in their procedure note to include the previous history of objections to the assessment of any neighbour interest; and
• confirm that in respect of condition 9 of planning application A that the approved landscaping scheme has been fully implemented and that the additional screening alluded to, if not surviving, is replaced by suitable replacements at the council’s expense.

Summary

Mr C said that the council did not follow their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a refund of phone call costs incurred in reporting repairs.

Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged their failings in this matter, explained what had gone wrong and apologised to Mr C. They said it was clear that a member of staff had not followed the correct procedures, and explained the training the staff member had since received. We upheld the complaint, but did not make any recommendation as the council had already taken appropriate action.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take steps to stop his neighbour from building a shed and decking area which did not have planning permission. When the neighbour then applied retrospectively for permission, Mr C complained that the council accepted poor quality drawings and plans relating to the proposal, that the officer who granted consent failed to carry out a site visit and failed to check the dimensions of the building after it was built. Mr C was also concerned that the building exceeded the permissible dimensions.

Having considered the background information, we found that when Mr C reported to the council that his neighbour was building in his garden, the council promptly carried out a site visit and, having reviewed the construction of a large garden shed, advised the neighbour that planning permission would be required. We noted that by requiring the neighbour to make a retrospective planning application, the council were giving them the opportunity to have the merits of the development considered by the planning department. We found this entirely appropriate. To seek to have the development removed, when it was possible that planning permission would be obtainable, would not have been a reasonable course of action for the council to have taken in this case.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Whilst the drawings which were submitted for the garden shed were not of a quality which would be produced by an architect, we found that they were sufficient for the type of development proposed, and complied with the relevant regulations. The council also provided evidence that they had visited the site and measured the shed. They were satisfied from this visit that the building was constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Although the officer who granted planning consent had not visited the site, a report of the development was produced by a fellow officer who had. Finally, we found no evidence to suggest that the shed exceeded any size restrictions.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following the completion of a new school behind his property, his garden was experiencing flooding during heavy rain. Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of his complaints about this and said that they had unreasonably failed to resolve the problem. He was also unhappy with the council's handling of his representations.

During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had provided evidence that they had taken action in an effort to resolve the problems. While Mr C remained dissatisfied, they were satisfied there was no other work they could reasonably carry out. They had said that maintenance work would be carried out to ensure the drainage system continued to function as designed. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. We did uphold his complaint about how they had handled his representations, as we found evidence that the council had failed to deal with Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their overall handling of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's partner submitted a claim to the council for damage to their car. After a number of messages from Mr C about delay in dealing with this, the council refused the claim, saying that there was no fault or negligence attributable to them. Mr C disputed this on a number of occasions and asked for the decision to be reviewed. He then complained about the way the council were handling matters. The council upheld part of his complaint but said that the complaints procedure did not allow for a review of the decision on his claim and that he should seek legal advice if he remained unhappy. Mr C wrote to the council again saying that their response had been unreasonable, in particular with relation to his claim, but the council repeated their decision.

Mr C continued to write to the council, and they wrote again, saying that while their decision on the insurance claim was one for the courts, they recognised that they had not been as helpful as they could have been and that their explanations could have been clearer. As a consequence, they said, the claims process was being reviewed.

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to operate and comply with reasonable procedures concerning his claim and because of this they did not deal properly with his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint as our investigation confirmed that there were defects in the council's internal claims process and that the council failed to follow their own stated procedures when dealing with his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their failing in this matter; and
• ensure that staff in the claims department are fully aware of the policies with regard to complaints handling and to requests for liability reviews.

Summary

Miss C is a council tenant. She complained that the council failed to acknowledge that there was a noise nuisance from her nextdoor neighbour’s house and to take reasonable steps to resolve the matter.

Our investigation found evidence that the council had investigated Miss C’s complaint. Visits had been carried out and no nuisance was identified. The view taken was that any noise came from normal household activities. It was clear that the council had not found a problem and this was why no further action had been taken. We did not, therefore, uphold the complaint but because it had been almost a year since the last visit by the council, and Miss C told us that she was continuing to experience a problem, we decided that it was reasonable to make a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• arrange a visit to Miss C's home to investigate her complaint about noise nuisance.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council used incorrect roads design guidance when assessing his planning application. He believed they used local guidance rather than the correct national planning policy when considering the application. In addition, he complained that the council used unrepresentative accident statistics when assessing the safety of his proposed access way. The council also cited a high average traffic speed as a concern to be considered when assessing the application, and Mr C believed this to be unfair. He said that if drivers were breaking the speed limit, the council should have taken steps to reduce this offence through enforcement and traffic management. Finally, he complained that they failed to provide a reasonable response to his complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the national policy he quoted was the correct one for assessing this issue. However, the policy allows councils flexibility and acknowledges the importance of local design guidance, which may also be used. We found no evidence to show that the council had used unreasonable accident statistics - those they used were obtained from the police. In addition, Mr C's agent had also provided his own road safety figures to the planning review committee for consideration. Finally we found that the council did not accept that the road was unsafe, rather they were of the view that the proposed access could not safely be introduced at that site. We highlighted to Mr C that the enforcement of speed limits was a matter for the police. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council considered these issues, and that they had explained their reasons for the way they did so in responding to the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably charged her for a visit to her home for a gas maintenance check, which was legally due. While she accepted that the contractor was initially unable to access her property, she said that she heard nothing more until the council sent her what they said was their third letter. The maintenance check was then carried out but the council applied an administrative fee, as explained in their third letter.

Our investigation found that the council are required by law to carry out an annual gas safety inspection and they follow a notification process. This ends in them forcing access to a property if a tenant does not respond. The council said that they had written to Ms C three times to arrange the inspection, and their contractor had left two cards at Ms C’s home on their unsuccessful attempts to carry out the check. The council provided copies of the correspondence and postcards and they all had the correct address details. As they had followed their policy we did not uphold Ms C's complaint, as the council were entitled to charge the fee.