Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a repair to a communal drain. He complained that the council had failed to treat it as a Right to Repair issue and should have compensated him £100 for not dealing with the repair quickly enough; had delayed in undertaking the repair; and in cleaning up the affected area; had failed to arrange for further work to the concrete slabs surrounding the sewer in the communal area; and that there was delay and inaccuracy by the council in responding to his complaints.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation established that this type of repair was not covered in the prescribed list of repairs to tenanted property under the Right to Repair scheme, as set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We also found that the repair to unblock the drain was completed within the terms of the council's repairs policy; and as there is no specific timescale for cleaning repairs, and this was attended to within a short period of time, we did not find that there was delay in cleaning up the area.

The council told us that they had not been aware of Mr C's concerns about the condition of the concrete slabs before we contacted them about this, and it was later confirmed that this had been attended to. We also found that the council had responded to the complaint within the required timescales and, while there was a regrettable minor inaccuracy in the council's response to Mr C about the time and date for completion of the repair, it did not amount to a significant or material failure.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's processing of two planning applications in respect of the demolition of a property in a conservation area and the erection of a new home. Two applications were required due to separate consent being required under conservation area consent requirements.

We did not uphold her complaint that the processing was incorrect as the second application did not include information required by council guidance, because our investigation found the application did in fact include this information. We noted however that in their response, the council had not made this clear to Ms C.

We did uphold Ms C's complaint that the council did not respond properly to her complaints. That there were lengthy unexplained delays, and the final response failed to address an additional concern Ms C had raised. We also noted it was not reasonable that the report about the first application was not available on the council's online portal until eight days after the application was granted. We recognised this prevented members of the public having faith in the process.

We also noted some issues in relation to the way the two applications were handled; for example, the applications could have been handled alongside each other, as the process as it stood suggested one had pre-empted the other. In addition, there was some key wording missed out in error in the first application, which could potentially have been misleading and suggested the second application would not be required. We drew this to the council's attention and made three recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Ms C with a full apology for not responding to her complaint timeously and for not fully addressing the concerns she raised;
• provide the Ombudsman with evidence to demonstrate that the council's internal complaints procedure is being complied with, including evidence that complainants are contacted to seek agreement for further time to respond if required; and
• review and improve procedures for planning applications which require separate conservation area applications to ensure a pragmatic approach and provide evidence of this review to the Ombudsman.

Summary

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their client (Miss C) that the council had failed to carry out appropriate neighbour notification procedures connected with a planning application for a neighbouring property. As a result, the council had not identified that Miss C should have been notified about the application. The planning application related to a site which had received planning consent in 2008 for housing development and for which a further planning application had been submitted in 2011. Miss C had received neighbour notification in 2008 but not in 2011, although the application was advertised in the press.

Miss C was dissatisfied because the council did not uphold her complaint because there was no statutory requirement for them to notify her under the current regulations. However they also told her that she should still have received a notification, but did not because the planning officer failed to check that all such relevant notifications had been carried out.

Our investigation confirmed that there had been a change in the regulations since the 2008 application was before the council. The council's investigation found that the complaint of failure to act within the terms of the current planning regulations and guidance was not upheld, and we concluded, after taking independent planning advice, that this was a reasonable decision to arrive at. We did, however, find inconsistency in their decision not to uphold the complaint but still find that Miss C should have been notified. However, the council confirmed that the recommendations they made as a result of their investigation had been acted on, to ensure that their procedures for neighbour notification would in future be adhered to. We were satisfied with the action taken by the council to follow up on their investigation and did not consider that any further action was required.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about changes to the lighting in the close that he shares with his neighbour. He said that, historically, lighting was provided from dusk to dawn, but that this service was withdrawn in November 2011.

Our investigation found that the council were not obliged to provide lighting in the close. The original light was connected to Mr C's neighbour's electricity supply and, although there was an understanding that the light would be left on overnight, this was ultimately at her discretion. When a new tenant moved into that property she decided not to use the light. Although the council were not required to light the close, we found that they had provided Mr C with a second light, over which he had sole control. We were satisfied that this was an appropriate gesture and that they had suggested other steps that he could take to increase the level of lighting available.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for planning consent for a two storey extension to the house next door. They alleged that the council failed to handle the planning application appropriately. They said that the planning officer wrongly calculated the overall size of the house next door in assessing the extension; their objections were not appropriately taken into account, particularly with regard to overshadowing and light restriction to their windows; granting consent with a specific finish could only be achieved by the neighbours accessing their property; and the council failed to take into account the future difficulty of maintaining Mr and Mrs C's property.

As part of our investigation we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that an error had indeed been made in failing to consider the earliest of several previous extensions to the property next door, which resulted in the wrong baseline being used to compare percentages. This did not, however, in the view of the planning adviser imply that consent had wrongly been granted. In general, appropriate consideration had been given to the council's supplementary planning guidance notes. We did not uphold the three other complaints. We noted that the applicant, as he was entitled to do, applied for consent to construct the extension up to the boundary but the council had, in granting consent, omitted to include a condition relating to a particular finish. We, therefore, made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the error which occurred in this instance with a view to ensuring that in future the full relevant planning history of a property is assessed in respect of planning applications for domestic extension; and
• explore the reasons why, when the local plan guidance generally requires that the materials and finish of an extension match the existing house, such a condition was not applied to the consent on the application.
• 

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's property flooded on two occasions, once in 2009 and again in 2011. There was some uncertainty as to whether the flood water was rain or river water, however, as it was flowing onto their property via the public highway, they felt the council were responsible for taking action to prevent this. We identified that, in responding to the flooding reports, the council had surveyed the situation and taken steps to try to assist. We noted that they had attempted to have a neighbouring land owner address his private drainage system and they also carried out some clearance and repair works on the surrounding drainage. Following this, they were satisfied that the road drainage was fit to cope with normal conditions.

The council highlighted that responsibility for protecting their property from flooding lay with Mr and Mrs C and they offered advice on further steps they could consider taking to reduce the flood risk. The recently enacted flood prevention legislation requires the council to carry out clearance and repair works on bodies of water where they feel that this will substantially reduce the risk of flooding. In this instance, they were not persuaded that further clearance and repair works alone would substantially reduce this risk. This was a matter that the council were entitled to decide, and we cannot look at such a decision unless there is evidence of something going wrong in the way in which it was taken. We were satisfied that the council appropriately investigated Mr and Mrs C's concerns and took what we considered to be reasonable action to try to assist. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients about the way in which the council dealt with a neighbouring farmer's planning review application. He said that his clients were not given enough time to make their representations against the review, nor were their views, once made, taken into account. He also said that the review process was not adequately carried out nor were his clients' interests sufficiently protected . Finally, he complained that they were not told the outcome of the review which, in effect, deprived them of the right of appeal to the courts.

We investigated the complaint and obtained specialist planning advice. Our investigation found that most of the process was carried out in terms of the legislation, and we did not uphold three of the complaints. However, we found that although the council acted in accordance with the appropriate legislation with regard to notification they had not provided information on their website, as they said they had. On balance we decided to uphold the complaint about notification of the review. They also failed to officially tell Mr C's clients of the outcome of the review, which meant that his clients missed their opportunity to appeal, and we also upheld his complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that information on their website concerning local reviews is made clear;
• demonstrate that processes have been put in place to prevent a recurrence of the situation; and
• apologise formally to Mr C's clients.
• 

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to assist her in finding safe accommodation when she informed them that she was being stalked and harassed by a local man. When Ms C then moved to two different properties through a mutual exchange programme, she raised a further complaint that the council did not properly consider another request to be re-housed due to noisy neighbours and persistent youth disorder outside her home.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that there was insufficient information reported to the council about Ms C's alleged stalker for them to act. The evidence showed that the only records that the council had about this were noted in Ms C's housing application and that they had contacted the local police about these concerns. However, the police had told the council that they had no record of Ms C having reported being stalked. There was also little evidence of Ms C reporting persistent noise by local youths or her neighbours to the council. Therefore, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably in not awarding Ms C priority housing.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of issues about the handling of a planning application for a development next to her home. She said that the council did not reasonably consider the application and did not reasonably respond to concerns raised during the construction of the development. Ms C also raised concerns about the handling of her representations.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that the council had taken account of the relevant material considerations (genuine planning considerations related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest), and complied with their guidelines.

We were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council took into consideration issues about privacy and overlooking, and the representations made by Ms C. We also found that the council had reasonably considered the proposed changes to the planning permission originally granted, had taken appropriate action and had responded to the concerns raised by Ms C. Finally, we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had provided Ms C with reasoned responses to the issues she raised.

Summary

Ms C had to move out of her home temporarily while the council carried out repair work because woodworm had affected most of her property. Ms C said that the council assured her that the work would be carried out with the minimum of fuss and that her home would be returned in the same condition. She said that, during this time, on several occasions she and her partner were contacted by workmen to gain access to her home, although she had provided a spare set of keys before the work started. On one occasion, while on holiday, the council had called to advise her that they would have to force entry to the property if they could not get a set of keys, due to an emergency that had arisen involving her neighbour. On another occasion, Ms C said that she was asked to take keys to her home and lock up at the end of the day but on returning later, found the workers had left her home insecure. Ms C was also unhappy that the council had not got her to sign off individual work carried out at the property and that a housing officer told her that no cleaning or redecoration would be provided after the repair work. She also said that the council had not responded reasonably to two letters of complaint she sent.

We upheld most of Ms C's complaints. Our investigation established that the council met with Ms C before the work was carried out to discuss the significant amount of work to be done. As Ms C had highlighted that she had health problems, arrangements were made for a spare set of keys to be given to the tradesmen, and her partner was to be contacted in the event that the council needed to discuss any matter related to the work. During the time of the repair work we found evidence to support that there were problems with the different trades accessing the property. Whilst the council took steps a couple of weeks later to fit a key safe outside Ms C’s home, we considered that this could have been implemented sooner as the council would have been aware that the various trades would need access to the property at different times. We also identified that the council had tried to obtain feedback from Ms C after the work had been completed, but that it was not compulsory for the council to 'sign off' individual pieces of work, so we did not uphold that complaint.

Whilst Ms C gained access to her home in order to begin cleaning it prior to the work being finished, we did not find evidence to support that she was advised no cleaning would be carried out. On the contrary, there were records to show that cleaning was to be done after the work had been completed. However, we upheld her complaint that the property was not left in the state that she understood it would be. Finally, we upheld Ms C's concerns about the handling of her complaint, as we identified that the council had not compensated her for a missed appointment nor had they repainted her bedroom as stated in their complaint responses to her.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the problems with accessing her property;
• fulfill its agreement and ensure Ms C's bedroom is repainted; and
• that the council provide the Ombudsman with a copy of their apology letter and evidence to confirm that Ms C has been reimbursed for the missed appointments in August and September 2011.
•