Local Government

Summary

The council granted planning permission for a supermarket development opposite Mrs C's home. She was opposed to the development and had submitted objections during the planning application process. Her objections included concerns about the proposed development's impact on her ability to safely enter and exit her driveway, which is situated on a bend in the road, opposite the supermarket's access junction.

Mrs C became aware that a transport assessment had been undertaken in relation to the development. On looking into this, Mrs C became concerned and complained that the council's actions in relation to this assessment contributed to what she considered to be an unsafe road layout. She said that the council allowed the developer to conduct traffic surveys at times when traffic was diverted away from the road being assessed. She felt the council accepted a substandard traffic assessment and approved the planning application without question and then failed to ensure that certain planning conditions were met. She also complained about the council's handling of her correspondence about this.

We did not uphold most of Mrs C's complaints. The evidence that we examined in our investigation showed that no diversions were in place when the traffic surveys were carried out, and that the council had in fact considered the developer's traffic assessment to be substandard. They sought appropriate technical advice and worked with their adviser to ensure that amendments were made before planning consent was approved. We were satisfied that the council did not simply accept the proposals submitted by the developer, and we found that any outstanding issues were incorporated into conditions attached to the planning consent. That said, we found the council's record-keeping around this to be poor.

We found the council's actions on the two planning conditions that Mrs C felt had not been met to be reasonable. In one case, the council had not acted on a recommendation from their technical advisers to reword the condition, but we were satisfied that the action that they took reflected national guidance. We were, however, critical of the council's complaints handling and upheld Mrs C's complaints about this. The council had not shared with her the evidence that they presented to us, which clearly explained and supported the council's actions on the transport assessment. As such, complaints that could have been resolved quickly were allowed to carry on with no detailed explanation of the council's approach.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider introducing a system to maintain clear records of issues that have been identified, the action proposed to address them, and the date and reasons for the council's decision in response to each proposed action; and
• take steps to ensure that staff responding to complaints do so in sufficient detail to explain the reasons behind the council's position.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably refused a tenancy succession request she made when her grandfather died. The council said that the property was not Mrs C's principal or only residence at the time of her grandfather's death and, therefore, she was not legally entitled to succeed the tenancy. The evidence we found during our investigation supported this and we did not find any fault in the way that the council arrived at their decision.

We did find that the council took too long to deal with Mrs C's complaint, but as they had already changed their complaints procedure and were in the process of retraining staff, we did not make any recommendation about this.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably issued him with a parking ticket. He said that there was a long-term agreement between local residents and the council that allowed residents to park on occasions when loading and unloading of cars was required. He also complained about the way the council dealt with his appeal and subsequent complaint. The council were of the view that no agreement existed and that residents were obliged to comply with the terms of the relevant road traffic order.

We were not provided with evidence of any agreement existing between the council and residents. Our investigation, therefore, found that the council acted reasonably by interpreting the road traffic order in the way they did, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints that they acted unreasonably in this respect. However, we did find that the council failed to clearly separate the appeals and complaints processes and failed to respond to Mr C's concerns that the appeals process was in breach of article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention. As a result we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• contact Mr C to clarify his concerns about the compliance of the appeals process with human rights legislation, consider his comments, and then respond to him in writing; and
• carry out a review of their handling of this case with a view to establishing whether further guidance needs to be provided to staff to ensure appropriate separation between the appeals and complaints processes in future, and notify the Ombudsman of their findings.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take adequate action after he reported noise nuisance from his neighbour. The council's anti-social behaviour case management procedure outlines the action the council can take in response to evidence of anti-social behaviour. This includes considering an acceptable behaviour agreement, making a referral to the mediation service, asking their noise team to monitor the situation, calling a case conference, joint working with their conflict resolution service, and issuing warning notices or advisory warnings.

We found that the council had issued warning notices to Mr C's neighbour and had signed him up to an acceptable behaviour agreement. The council also told us that Mr C did not engage with the conflict resolution team and had rejected an offer of mediation. There was evidence that the council's noise team had attended Mr C's property. Although this did not initially resolve the problem, we were satisfied that the council took action in line with their procedures.

Mr C also told us that a member of the council's staff incorrectly told him that that he would be rehoused quickly if he applied for other housing. We found no evidence that the officer had said this. However, the council had told Mr C that they would update him when they had investigated this, and although they did investigate, they failed to update him of this due to an oversight.

Mr C also complained that the council had accused him of failing to attend a meeting, when he had already told them that he would not be attending. However, we found no evidence of this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to inform him that the matter he had raised had been investigated and was considered to be concluded.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had written, without her permission, to her GP about a council tax exemption, which had been granted many years previously on the basis of her mental health disorder. Having obtained the opinion of Ms C's GP the council then removed the exemption, generating a large council tax bill. Ms C said that this was unreasonable given that the council knew she was unwell. The council requested repeat information and forms from Ms C before agreeing to reinstate the exemption.

Our investigation found that, although distressing for Ms C, the actions of the council had not been unreasonable. A query over Ms C's entitlement to an exemption had arisen and the council had a right to investigate. Once they were satisfied that Ms C did qualify for the exemption, having reasonably requested further evidence from a different clinician, it was reinstated.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about aspects of their reasoning in deciding to give planning permission for a development on property adjoining her own. After the council responded to her, she complained to us that their responses had unreasonably ignored some of the specific issues she raised. We investigated the complaint, but considered that the council's responses had reasonably provided all of the information or clarification she had requested.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for a visit to his home about a gas maintenance check. The check on Mr C's home was due, but the council said he had missed the first appointment. Mr C told us that he was at home that day, and that the contractor had not arrived. He said that he received no further correspondence from the council until a contractor’s card was put through his door. He said that the council then attended his property and, although they were granted access by a relative who was there, they ‘capped’ Mr C’s gas and charged an administrative fee. Mr C was unhappy that they had done so.

Our investigation found that the council are required by law to carry out an annual gas safety inspection, and that there are set periods of notice that they need to give tenants about this. There are also steps they can take to gain access if a tenant does not respond. The council had sent three letters to Mr C trying to arrange the inspection, and left two cards at his home when their contractor could not gain access. They had his correct address details on record, had met all the periods of notice they were required to give him about this, and had followed their policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had done nothing wrong and were entitled to charge the administration fee.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C said that in June 2012 a building control officer inspected on-going works to their home extension and verbally told them that the walls complied with building regulations. As a result of this they continued construction. At a further inspection in August, however, some of the works that Mr and Mrs C believed had already been inspected were found not to comply with the approved plans and building regulations. Mr and Mrs C complained about this, saying that, had they known about the problem after the earlier visit, they would have stopped construction until it was resolved.

Our investigation found that the June inspection was solely for the purpose of reviewing the build to the open drain and sub-structure of the extension and did not involve the walls. We also noted that the building control officer wrote to Mr and Mrs C's agent immediately after the August inspection to notify them that aspects of the build did not comply with approved plans and building regulations.

It is the developer's responsibility to construct their development in accordance with the approved plans. The inspection process is not designed to control work on site but simply to examine whether a particular stage of the build being inspected is constructed in accordance with building regulations. As responsibility for ensuring that the build was in accordance with the approved plans fell to Mr and Mrs C, and as the June inspection was solely for the purpose of examining the open drain and sub structure, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the council took too long to acknowledge and respond to a complaint that she had made to them. She said that they had not properly explained how different parts of her complaint were going to be handled, and failed to respond to one of her complaints altogether.

Our investigation found that there was a delay in Mrs C's complaint being logged with the correct team and we upheld that complaint, but we did not find any unreasonable delays in responding to the issues Mrs C had raised. This was a complex and multi-faceted complaint, different elements of which needed different responses and actions. However, we found that the council had not properly and fully explained to Mrs C how some issues would be dealt with, and we upheld her complaint about this. We agreed that they had not responded to one complaint but decided that this had been reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C lives close to a holiday chalet park. The park was first granted planning consent in 1985 but various amendments were later granted. In July 2010 the operator submitted an application to the council for retrospective planning consent. This was granted in March 2011, subject to four conditions.

In October 2011, Mr C contacted the council’s planning services, complaining that the park operator had delayed in complying with three of the four conditions and about an error in the other condition. Six months later, dissatisfied with the council's lack of action, Mr C tried to pursue a complaint through the council's corporate complaints procedure. He was dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint, and complained to us. At that time further matters of alleged unauthorised activity at the chalet park had arisen, but as Mr C had not pursued these with the council as a complaint, we could not look at those.

Our investigation upheld all three of Mr C's complaints, namely that there had been: unreasonable delay or failure to enforce planning conditions; a failure to adequately respond to Mr C's complaints and an unreasonable failure to investigate Mr C's subsequent complaints adequately. We upheld the last complaint because we found that Mr C's complaint to the council had not been dealt with. This was because the council had said that their corporate complaints procedures excluded matters about live planning applications, although this was not the case here.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reach a decision on the information received on a particular date from the agent;
• respond, without breaching confidentiality, to confirm the action they have taken with the owner in response to Mr C's reports of breaches of the planning conditions; and
• review the content of their enforcement charter and procedures on complaints to remove inconsistencies.