Local Government

Summary

Mr C said that the introduction of the 'safer routes to school' programme in his area had impacted on his access to his home. He was unhappy that a traffic calming measure had been installed in front of his driveway without prior consultation. This had seriously restricted his access to his property, and had made manoeuvering his touring caravan into the driveway so difficult that he had to sell the van. He was particularly unhappy that the council later removed a similar calming measure from outside another property in his street but refused to remove the one outside his home.

Our investigation found that the calming measure had been installed by the developer of a new housing scheme and was a condition of the planning permission granted. The council said they were disappointed that the developer had not made Mr C aware of the detailed proposals, but that consultation was carried out with the community council. Although the developer had met the legal requirements for consultation, the council had in fact apologised to Mr C because he was not consulted directly. We upheld this complaint.

In relation to Mr C's complaint that the calming measure caused an obstruction, we found that the access to his property had been modified but the kerb had not been dropped to match the alteration, which had resulted in restricting his access. As we found that the council had offered to arrange for the kerb to be dropped but Mr C had declined this, as well as an offer to move the double white lines painted across the driveway further back, we did not uphold this complaint. Finally, we found that in the case where the calming measure had been removed, the occupant of the property had been able to demonstrate that it caused an obstruction, which Mr C had not been able to do. We did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, when granting planning permission in similar circumstances, they direct the developer to the section on consultation in the Department of Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 11/94 which advises that all parties with an interest in the amenity, conservation or development of the area should be consulted.

Summary

Mrs C's neighbour installed a static caravan in their garden, next to her property. Planning consent was not obtained for this although the council told Mrs C that this was required under certain circumstances. The caravan was, at times, used for residential purposes, which would have required planning permission. However, although the owner submitted a retrospective planning application to the council, the use of the caravan then changed to office and storage space. This meant that planning permission was ultimately not required and the application was withdrawn. Mrs C complained that the caravan continued to be used as a residence, that a number of planning laws were not adhered to and that the council failed to take enforcement action.

We did not uphold these complaints. We were generally satisfied that the council took appropriate steps to determine whether the caravan was being used for residential purposes. When this was believed to be the case, they required the neighbour to apply for planning permission. However, they advised the neighbour that it was unlikely that permission would be granted and that residential use would have to cease. The neighbour withdrew their application and stated that the caravan would be used for office and storage space, which did not require planning permission. When concerns were raised about building control issues, we were again satisfied with the investigations carried out by the council and by their decision not to take enforcement action. We were also satisfied with the council's responses to Mrs C's enquiries.

Summary

Mr C is the owner-occupier of a property in a conservation area. His next-door neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish a section of an external wall and build a small single storey extension at the back of his property. The extension was to have a glazed door to the side (facing Mr C's property) and was to be clad with blue-grey stained timber. The council produced a report of handling recommending that the application should be granted.

Mr C complained that the character of the extension did not fit with the surrounding area and that the report of handling failed to refer to the local area character assessment. Mr C also complained about privacy issues relating to the door facing his property. The council recognised that it had failed to specifically mention the local area character assessment in its consideration, apologised for this and took action to ensure that decision-makers do so in the future. However, they said that this would not have affected the outcome of the decision and that they thought that the decision-maker's consideration of the general character of the extension and privacy issues was reasonable.

Following advice from our planning adviser, we decided that the council failed to consider the local area character assessment when it should have. However, our adviser told us that the key point was whether the principles underlying the relevant material considerations were, in fact, taken into account. In his view, they were. We considered, therefore, that the council had taken enough action to remedy the failures in this complaint. Furthermore, after careful consideration of the council's planning decision, we were unable to find evidence that the council misrepresented matters in its planning decision.

Summary

Mr C had applied to be re-housed. His application was also assessed for priority housing as he said he was being harassed in his current home. Mr C complained that there was a delay in processing his application, and was unhappy with a council visit to his home. He felt that the visiting council officer had been unprepared and he had concerns about the questions asked and the advice given. In addition, he was dissatisfied with the decision reached on his application for priority and the way he was advised of the decision. He was also unhappy that a council officer had contacted another department after he had been asked not to do so.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. During our investigation we found that, while there was delay in processing a request for information about the allegation of harassment, there had been no delay in processing his application for housing. Mr C's name was added to the council's housing list in line with their target timescales.

The evidence we saw also showed that after the council received all the information, including information from the police, they told Mr C their decision on his priority within their target timescales. While there was no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the council's handling of the issues raised, they had apologised for the distress and unsatisfactory service Mr C felt he had received, and for any confusion or misleading information received from officers with regard to his priority. The council had also apologised for the delay in processing the request for information and explained to us the action they had taken as a result of Mr C's case.

Summary

After moving into a council property, Mr A told the council that water was coming in at the front door and there was mould growing in the bathroom. The council arranged to paint the bathroom but the mould problems continued, and the front door leak was not repaired. Mr A submitted a formal complaint and also raised concerns about draughts and condensation in the bedrooms. He said that this had forced him to sleep in the lounge area and that the problems with dampness, mould and drafts had had an adverse impact on his health.

Mr A was re-housed within two days of submitting his complaint to the council and, in formally responding to the complaint, they acknowledged that they had not followed their normal process in dealing with the repairs. They apologised for the inconvenience, undertook to speak to staff to avoid similar future problems, and compensated Mr A for damaged possessions and mail items. Mr A was not satisfied with this and requested that his rent payments be refunded. The council did not consider this appropriate as, in their view, Mr A had also contributed to the problem by failing to adequately heat and ventilate the property.

Miss C, an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of Mr A that the council had failed to reasonably address the problems with the property and failed to acknowledged that the problems were there before Mr A's tenancy started. To support this, she provided a letter from a previous tenant who said that he had also told the council about problems of water coming in and mould growth. Our enquiries revealed that required repair work, identified before the departure of the previous tenant, was not carried out before Mr A started his tenancy. We also found that the council should have carried out an inspection between tenancies, but this was not done. We noted that the council had then been slow to respond to repair requests by Mr A and that the required repair to the front door was not carried out at all during his tenancy. We, therefore, upheld the complaint. However, we noted that the council had already acknowledged their failings and taken what we considered to be reasonable steps to address these, and we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C have a teenage son with a disability. They were unhappy with the council’s handling of an assessment of their need for an increased respite service and said there was poor communication. They complained to the council’s social work service. Their complaint was fully upheld and three recommendations were made and implemented, one on a limited basis. Mr and Mrs C were not satisfied and made a request that their complaint be taken to a complaints review committee (CRC). When that request was not met they complained to us about the council’s failure to meet their request and failure to communicate with them.

We upheld both elements of Mr and Mrs C's complaint. Our investigation found that there had been an unacceptable delay in convening the CRC because the council lacked a full panel of appropriately qualified persons. There had also been continuing poor communication by the council in telling Mr and Mrs C about the reasons for this delay.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• convene a CRC at the earliest opportunity; and
• keep Mr and Mrs C informed of progress in convening the CRC.

Summary

Mr C, who is Mr A's representative, complained that there were inaccuracies in the report of a social work complaints review committee meeting, that was presented to the housing and social work services committee. He wanted to correct minor factual accuracies concerning Mr A's title and age. He also disagreed with some of the findings of the report and said he had not received a response to his letter highlighting the inaccuracies.

We found that, in accordance with council procedures, Mr C's comments were appended to the report for consideration by the committee. The council provided a copy of the information presented to the committee and it included Mr C's comments as appendix three to the document. The minutes of the social work services committee meeting also recorded that the report presented to the committee 'included comments from Mr A's representative’ and was approved. We were satisfied that Mr C's comments were heard and taken into consideration by the committee in deciding that the recommendations of the sub-committee be approved and told Mr C we would not be pursuing his complaint any further.

Summary

Mr C runs a business situated on a road that the council intended to close temporarily for a week to allow for resurfacing. The normal practice was that the council prepared a letter for a representative of the contractor to hand-deliver to businesses at least a week before work started and, at the same time, to discuss specific access requirements. Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably undertake their responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 about access and egress (entry and exit) to the works area; did not follow their own health and safety procedures in relation to the road works; and did not investigate his complaints about these matters within a reasonable time scale.

Our investigation confirmed that the council’s contractor had not notified and discussed specific access and egress requirements with Mr C (and a number of other businesses) until four calendar days before the work started. Mr C also had photographic evidence showing that health and safety procedures were on at least one occasion not followed when a vehicle reversed without a banksman (reversing assistant) in attendance. We, therefore, upheld the first two elements of Mr C’s complaint. We did not uphold the complaint about complaints handling, as although the complaint took slightly longer to deal with than indicated by the council’s published timelines, we found there had been mitigating circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• copy this decision notice to the contractor and remind them of their responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and related health and safety measures.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council dealt with a request for approval of matters specified in the conditions of a planning permission. In particular, he said that the council had not informed members of the public about changes in planning guidance; had not given proper consideration to the objections he and his neighbours made; and failed to take account of access and turning arrangements in and to the site concerned.

We investigated the complaint and took into account all the information provided by Mr C and by the council (including the complaints file, complaints procedure and relevant policies). We also obtained independent planning advice and made further inquiries of the council.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation confirmed that changes to the planning guidance concerned had taken place after a period of consultation, and met pre-agreed criteria. Although Mr C considered that further consultation should then have taken place, this was not a requirement of the planning legislation. Also, the documentation confirmed that the council had given due consideration to Mr C and his neighbours' representations but, still, decided to grant approval. They were also satisfied that the developer provided sufficient information to demonstrate that access onto and within the site was satisfactory. Although Mr C provided his own professional advice which demonstrated the contrary, this was not provided until after the application was decided.

Summary

Mr C said that shortly after the council launched the commonwealth graduate fund (CGF) in November 2011 he phoned them to ask about his eligibilty for an award and described his circumstances. He said that he did not receive a response and he then sent two email enquiries in December 2011. When he did not receive a response to a further enquiry to a local councillor, he made a formal complaint to the council. He said he was later told that the criteria for the award had changed and he was not eligible. In the intervening period, the published criteria on the council's website was changed, in particular a residency requirement was introduced which excluded residents outwith the council's boundary.

Mr C felt that council staff had decided that the CGF should not apply to people in his situation. He told us that he believed that they had deliberately ignored his phone call and deleted his emails until the criteria were changed, with a view to making him ineligible. He also believed that the criteria were not changed on 22 November 2011, as advised by the council, as the information on the council’s website was not updated until 12 January 2012. He was also concerned about the fairness of the decision to restrict the scheme to those who live in the city as he believed this was discriminatory to older applicants with families who are more likely to live outwith the city boundary.

Our investigation found that the council had dealt with Mr C in a fair and equitable way. While acknowledging that his initial emails were not received as they were treated as ‘spam’, we noted that the council had apologised to him, had taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again and had explained to him the action they had taken. Our view was that once the council did receive Mr C's application, it was dealt with fairly and promptly, as was all his subsequent correspondence on the matter. The council's decision that Mr C was not eligible for the award was based on the fact that he was currently still studying and therefore did not meet the criterion of ‘graduates who had completed their studies and had not been successful in gaining graduate employment’.

We found no evidence to support Mr C's view that his enquiries were deliberately ignored until the criteria were changed. We also considered his belief that the criteria were not changed at the meeting held on 22 November 2011. We found that the meeting was held to review the qualifying criteria, in particular the need to ‘have a parental home in the city boundary’. The decision was taken to remove this immediately as it was considered to be intrusive, and in some case, impossible for the council to verify the parental relationship or to establish the parental address. We did not uphold his complaints as we found no evidence of maladministration in this or in the council’s handling of his application.