Local Government

Summary

The area of the town where Mr C lives was excluded from the council's controlled parking proposals and Mr C and another resident felt that the parking problems had worsened since then. Mr C pressed for his area to be added to the controlled parking zone and organised a survey of residents, which met with a positive response to the introduction of controls. Mr C complained that the council delayed in progressing the matter; did not adequately explain a public consultation process they undertook; and the timing of the consultation was inappropriate, denying the local community council the opportunity to comment. Mr C was also unhappy about action taken by officers following a series of meetings and alleged the council had cancelled at short notice a public meeting arranged by the community council.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's five complaints. The council explained that they had perceived that not all local residents supported the introduction of controlled parking, and so decided to conduct a public consultation. This was, however, delayed because of parliamentary elections. Our investigation did not find the explanation of the purpose and timing of this inappropriate. The consultation revealed a significant body of objection in the area, and when this was reported, the committee decided to take no immediate action. A later meeting with officers had involved robust disagreement. On the basis of the council officers’ report, Mr C was then sent a warning about his future conduct and he himself submitted a formal complaint. After this, the council decided that, in the lead up period to local elections, officers should not participate in a public meeting arranged by the community council, although officers later attended a re-arranged meeting.

Summary

Ms C, a mature student, started a postgraduate degree. She had been living on her own in a two bedroom private let and had previously received 25 percent single person’s council tax discount. When she started studying, she applied for, and was granted, exemption from council tax during her studies. In November 2010, with the written consent of her landlord she sublet the extra bedroom to a lodger. The lodger was not a student but applied for, and was granted, housing benefit which continued until August 2011. Ms C did not ask the council about how having a lodger might affect her student exemption. In July 2011 after completing her second year of studies, Ms C herself applied for housing benefit, and it was then held that she as tenant was responsible for full council tax (less 25 percent single person’s discount) dating back to when her lodger arrived. By the time that the council had calculated this and told Ms C about it, however, her lodger had left. Ms C also moved out in November 2011 but the council then pursued her for substantial arrears of council tax for 2010/11 and 2011/12 and for an amount of overpaid housing benefit.

When Ms C pursued this with the council before submitting a complaint, they told her that they had issued a demand for the council tax in January 2011. They could not, however, provide a copy of the relevant demand or covering explanatory letter. Ms C made two complaints about the council: that they unreasonably failed to remove a student exemption from her council tax and notify her at the time of the revised council tax charge; and that they did not make it clear to her that subletting a room in her flat would affect her claim for housing benefit.

Although it is generally a claimant's responsibility to tell the council about potentially relevant changes, we considered that the council’s delay in notification meant that Ms C could not realistically pursue her lodger for the amount due. We upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to put this right. We did not uphold the second complaint, as it was clear that Ms C’s claim for housing benefit was made some seven months after her lodger’s housing benefit claim.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for their omission in not removing her student exemption earlier and in informing her of this; and
• credit Ms C's council tax accounts for 2010/11 and 2011/12 with an ex gratia sum of half the council tax liability incurred during the period of her lodger's occupation of the flat.

Summary

In June 2011, Mr and Mrs C submitted a planning application to build a house in their garden. They complained that planning permission was refused although at the pre-advice stage, the council did not identify any concerns. Mr and Mrs C also said that an application in principle had been made in accordance with council officers' advice. After refusal, Mr and Mrs C asked for the decision to be reviewed but this was also refused. They complained, in general, about the way in which the council dealt with their applications.

During our investigation we obtained independent planning advice from one of our planning advisers, and considered the complaints and planning files. We upheld three of Mr and Mrs C's six complaints. Our investigation found that, throughout the process, Mr and Mrs C had the benefit of planning advice as they had engaged their own planning consultant to assist them with their application. Notwithstanding the advice they said they were given by the council, it was clear that the only way to determine an application was to submit it. Our investigation showed that there was no evidence to suggest that they had been encouraged to submit an application in principle. However, when the application came for validation, our planning adviser said that the council failed to deal with it in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. They also uploaded irrelevant information onto their planning website. However, at the review stage the council followed government guidance. When Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the outcome and complained, we found the council failed to respond to their concerns in a reasonable manner.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• formally apologise for their error in validating the application;
• reimburse fifty percent of costs as it appears doubtful, given that they did not require design details, that they would have gone on to require drainage information;
• apologise for their error; and
• formally apologise for their shortcomings in the way they handled the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained about the council on behalf of her constituent (Mr A). Mr A had originally approached the council to seek permission to operate a car cleaning business from a council car park. The council refused this on the basis that there was a general presumption against the carrying out of businesses in their car parks. Following this, Ms C contacted the council on behalf of Mr A and after some communication, the council offered him the opportunity to operate his business on a two month trial basis, subject to the approval of a business plan. A significant period of time passed before Mr A's business plan reached the council. By then, they had introduced a parking order prohibiting the cleaning or washing of vehicles in any council car park, and on that basis the application was refused.

Ms C complained to us that the council failed to appropriately consider Mr A's application to operate a car cleaning business; unreasonably delayed in responding to his concerns; inappropriately failed to tell her about an order being considered by committee in relation to the setting up of businesses in council car parks; and that the order unfairly allowed some businesses to operate but not Mr A's.

After investigating these complaints, we did not uphold them. We were satisfied the council properly considered Mr A's proposal before the introduction of the order and had explained their position clearly. Although Mr A felt the submission of a business plan was unnecessary, the council were entitled to ask for this before deciding whether to allow him to operate his business. In addition, the evidence available confirmed that the council responded to concerns raised by Mr A, and others on his behalf, within a reasonable time. The process for notifying people about orders being considered by committee was to advertise in local newspapers, with information also available on the council's website. The parking order was advertised by the council but no objections were received. Lastly, the parking order specifically prohibited the cleaning or washing of vehicles in council car parks. It gave the council discretion to allow certain businesses to operate that did not involve the cleaning or washing of vehicles, when it was appropriate to do so.

Summary

Mrs C moved back to the council's area to care for family. She accepted the council’s offer of an upper villa flat which had an intercom service to wardens in a nearby sheltered housing complex, although she was fit and active and had no need of the service. The council upgraded the intercom service at the start of 2012. Mrs C then began to be disturbed each morning with switchovers of warden shifts and an early call from the wardens to her downstairs neighbour, who was deaf. This caused her stress and she requested a house transfer. When Mrs C complained, the council disconnected her intercom service and insulated the cable conduit to reduce noise leakage between the two flats. The remaining problem was a matter of acoustic noise transference of conversations between the two properties.

Our investigation did not find grounds to uphold Mrs C’s complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to deal with the problems of the intercom system but in the circumstances, given Mrs C’s wish to move, we made a recommendation to address her concerns.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• invite Mrs C to an interview with their letting centre to explore the possibilities of a mutual exchange and other housing options.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of two planning applications. He said that the planning report contained inaccuracies and had not dealt with issues of window distances, subdivision of land and loss of amenity. He also said that archaeological and tree survey requirements were not undertaken. Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of enforcement matters at the site.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council's actions were reasonable and they had dealt with the applications properly. We were also satisfied that the council's position that there were no archaeological issues in this case was reasonable and we found no evidence of fault in relation to the council's decision that there was no need for a tree survey. Finally, we were satisfied that the action the council took in dealing with the enforcement matters raised by Mr C was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C said that a planning application was made to infill a small building site, which was approved by the council's area planning committee, subject to conditions. Shortly afterwards, he wrote to the planning department saying that the applicant for permission had provided incorrect information, particularly about ownership, and that the application should be declared invalid. The council looked into this but confirmed that the planning permission stood. Mr C complained that, despite his continued representations on the matter, the council took the view that although they had a duty to take action where an offence had occurred, the situation was not clear cut. They had said that they did not believe the applicant had knowingly and recklessly made incorrect statements. They said they had attempted to establish the situation but the applicant had declined to provide more detail - if the land was owned by someone other than the applicant, he would be unable to build, and ownership rights were a matter for the courts.

As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a planning adviser. This confirmed that an applicant does not have to own the land for which they seek planning permission and that after receiving Mr C's allegations, the council had taken appropriate and reasonable action in the event that the applicant wished to reconsider his position.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to deal correctly with his representations about the application and said that rather than dealing with them in terms of planning, he was required to make a formal complaint through the council's complaints and feedback procedure. We looked at this procedure, and how the council had acted in relation to it, and found that the council had followed their policy.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the way in which the council handled her representations against a planning application, which she submitted after the cut-off date. She was dissatisfied that, after being told that late representations would be taken into account, hers were not considered by the committee that looked at the application.

During our investigation we found that while there was no statutory requirement to accept late representations, the council had, in an attempt to be helpful, circulated these to elected members. As the planning department had received Mrs C's representations after the committee agenda was circulated, it was decided not to copy these to the committee. However, staff had read them to confirm that they raised no new information or material issues that would significantly alter the assessment and recommendation in relation to the planning application. While the council accepted that there had been a breakdown in communication, for which they had apologised, our investigation found that they were not obliged to accept late representations. We also found no evidence that the committee failed to take account of all relevant material considerations before reaching their decision.

In addition, as a result of this case, the council stopped the practice of circulating late letters of objection against a planning application, and said that any late letters would instead be sent to the planning service for review.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about how the council handled a planning application to vary a condition that had been imposed on a previously granted planning permission. Mr C was unhappy that the council had accepted supporting information provided by the applicant without requesting further evidence from them. He also complained that as the original application had been granted on appeal, the new application should have been referred back to the Scottish Government.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found no fault in the council's handling of the application. The information provided by the applicant, while useful, was not material in the determination of the application and so the council did not require any further evidence of proof. We found no evidence that the council failed to take account of all relevant material considerations. There was also no requirement on the council to refer the application to the Scottish Government.

Summary

Mr C is a holder of a disability blue badge, and had applied to the council for a disabled parking bay to be marked out in front of his home. The council had also just received a similar request from a blue badge holder in the house opposite. The area committee agreed that both bays should be placed on the street, but on the opposite side to Mr C's home. Mr C was not happy with the council’s consideration of that request. He complained to us and we gave our decision (201000579) in 2011. We made six recommendations, including that the council should provide the committee with a new report on the two applications. The area committee reconsidered the matter in September 2011 and agreed that the issue should be the subject of a Road Traffic Regulation Order (RTRO) consultation.

After the consultation, the committee confirmed that both parking bays should be marked out on the opposite side of the street. Mr C had, meanwhile, again complained to the council and to us about the process under which his request was being considered. His complaint to us contained five elements; that since our previous decision was issued, the council had failed to deal appropriately with his application; that the second report prepared for the area committee was not fit-for-purpose and misled the committee; that his complaints to the council were not investigated appropriately, and they did not answer his complaints satisfactorily; and that the council made unsubstantiated accusations and allegations against Mr C and his wife, and gave them no right to refute or rebut these.

As we considered that the council had complied with our previous recommendations by October 2011, we did not uphold Mr C’s first complaint. Our investigation found that the report to the area committee was fit-for-purpose but that it did mislead with regard to the circumstances of the other applicant. We did not uphold the remaining three complaints, as we did not find any fault in the way the council dealt with these issues.