Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about how the council handled a request from one of his neighbours for a disabled parking bay. Mr C complained that the council failed to follow due process in placing the disabled parking bay outside his house. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations on the matter.

During our investigation of the complaint we found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the correct process when considering the request for a disabled parking bay, as they were only obliged to consult with the applicant. We were also satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had responded to Mr C's representations on the issue of the disabled parking bay.

Summary

Mr C complained about what he considered to be a lack of action by the council with regard to the operation of a local quarry. Planning permission was granted subject to a Section 75 agreement in 2009 for an expansion of the quarry operation. A Section 75 agreement is a legal agreement about financial contributions to meet the services and infrastructure needs of the local community associated with a new development. Mr C complained that the quarry company carried out works required as a condition of the 2009 planning consent before that consent was in place. He considered that the council failed to take action in relation to this work.

The work in question concerned the expansion and improvement of a local road, used by lorries visiting the quarry. The upgraded road surface meant that lorries could travel at higher speeds. This caused particular concern, as the road ran adjacent to a children's playground. As planning permission and Roads Construction Consent were not yet in place, the council could not oversee the improvement works. We found that the quarry company had a responsibility to maintain the road and that it would be inappropriate for the council to take action until such time as the works strayed into the realm of 'upgrading' rather than maintenance.

The council demonstrated that they passed on residents' concerns to the quarry company and when the work did become 'upgrading,' they reached a conscious decision not to take the enforcement action that was available to them. We were satisfied that, in reaching this decision, the council considered all of the relevant information. While we did not find that the council delayed taking action, we considered that the situation may have been different had the council not told the quarry company up-front that their planning application had been granted. We highlighted that it is good practice to adopt the 'minded to grant' style of decision where Section 75 agreements are required.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to take enforcement action following reports that the quarry company breached conditions relating to an earlier planning consent. We did not uphold this complaint, as the council were able to demonstrate that they had considered relevant information when exercising their discretion not to take enforcement action.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures in relation to the processing and determination of planning applications requiring Section 75 agreement to adopt the 'minded to grant' style of decision; and
• clarify their interpretation of what constitutes 'operations' at the quarry.

Summary

Mrs C bought her council house and is one of only two owner-occupiers in a block of eight flats. She said that the council carried out work to her house without permission, failed to detail the work that would be carried out, failed to discuss the proposed works with her and how she would finance these, and failed to give her the opportunity to obtain quotes for the works. The council, in responding to their tenants' reports of water leaks and dampness, had surveyed three blocks that they owned. The survey recommended substantial upgrading works to the rendering and roof. The council considered that as majority proprietor, under the terms of the title deeds they did not need the agreement of the owner-occupiers to instruct the works.

Our investigation found that the title deeds granted the council those powers, and that the nature of the work was disclosed shortly before it started. The council put the works out to tender with an estimated cost to each owner of more than £9,000. The maintenance of the building was a joint responsibility. After accounts were issued, the council offered a deferred repayment scheme over two years and recommended that Mrs C seek independent financial advice. Although Mrs C was unhappy at being faced with such a large bill shortly after becoming an owner, we did not uphold any of her complaints. We noted that the council, in the light of her complaint, had taken steps to improve communication with owners.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the condition of the road outside his home. He said there was an unreasonable delay between him making his complaint and repairs to the road being carried out. He also said he was unhappy about the council's response to his subsequent complaint about the standard of the repairs. In addition, Mr C complained that the council did not deal with his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found evidence showing that the council carried out the repairs 12 working days after Mr C complained, and ten working days after the defects were inspected. As the target repair time which the council aim to achieve is 8.5 days, we considered that carrying out the repair 1.5 days outwith the target was not unreasonable. We also obtained evidence which showed that the council inspected the repairs and determined that they were carried out appropriately. The fact that Mr C did not agree with this was not something we could look into as it is not our role to assess the standard of council repairs. As the evidence showed that the council carried out the repairs within a reasonable time and responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about the standard of the repairs, we did not uphold his complaint.

However, we were concerned that in their response, the council seemed uncertain about the target timescale for repair. Their initial response was silent on this point, they then said the target was 28 working days and finally concluded it was 8.5 working days. We were also concerned that their procedure did not appear to accurately reflect revised target timescales for urgent repairs. In addition, we were concerned that the council did not appear to have taken steps to look into Mr C's complaint that previously reported faults had not been repaired, or were not repaired properly. We accepted that the council are limited in terms of what they can do due to the passage of time, but they should have responded to Mr C on this point. We therefore, brought these matters to their attention.

On the matter of compliance with the council's complaints procedure, the evidence showed that on balance the council dealt with Mr C's complaint in accordance with procedure. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C had a number of complaints about the way the council had handled a planning application for a housing development on a site in her village. We did not uphold any of the complaints.

Ms C said that the council had failed to notify the local community council that the developer had objected to the site's green belt status during the consideration of the new local plan. She said it was unreasonable that this was only drawn to the community council's attention when the developer provided them with proposed plans around three years later. However, we found that there was no obligation on the council to provide notification to community councils about every objection made which was contrary to their position, and that in fact it would be disproportionate to expect them to do so.

Ms C also complained that the council had improperly considered roads issues, in particular that junction spacing and visibility at the entrance to the new development were not within safe standards. We found that the guidelines Ms C had referred to did not have to be adhered to rigidly, and that the roads officers who had assessed the site had properly assessed all relevant factors when reaching a decision about junction spacing and visibility.

Ms C was also concerned that the two storey housing proposed was not in keeping with surrounding houses in the area. However, we found no evidence that the proposals were unreasonable. Ms C had also complained about the calculation of housing density, based on the size of the site but again we found this to be reasonable. Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not adequately ensured that the developers adhered to the planning brief prepared by the council. However, we again found that such documents are prepared as guidance only, and do not need to be adhered to rigidly.

Summary

Mrs C raised concerns about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to her neighbour's house which was linked to her property. In particular, Mrs C maintained that the council had based their decision on incorrect information by assuming both properties had identical layouts, and had allowed the extension to extend down a shared boundary by more than four metres, which went against the council's local plan guidance note 7.

When we investigated the complaint we asked one of our planning advisers to provide advice on the way in which the council considered the application. In particular, we asked them to consider whether the evidence demonstrated that the council had complied with the local plan guidance note. After taking his advice, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered the relevant material considerations in deciding that the proposal was acceptable when assessed against the provision of the local plan guidance note 7. (A material consideration 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). While there had been errors in the planning report, these had no material effect on the final decision to grant planning consent. We found no evidence that there were procedural omissions in the handling of the planning application.

Summary

Mr C and his wife live abroad but own a property in the council's area, which was leased to their student daughter. Mr C told the council about this and provided details of the letting agent. Some six weeks after the let began, he was told that the council had obtained a summary warrant in respect of arrears of current council tax, when this was not the case.

Mr C was unhappy about this and about information sought by the council in respect of his residence and a copy of the lease. He submitted six complaints to us, three of which we upheld: that there was an error in sending the letter relating to the summary warrant, a delay by the council in responding to the final stage of Mr C's complaint; and an inadequate level of detail in the council's final response as to how a particular allegation had been investigated. The council had already apologised in respect of two of the upheld complaints. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about victimisation and information provided by the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for not having provided an adequate level of detail in how they had addressed the issue of alleged victimisation.

Summary

Mr C, who has a history of physical and mental health conditions, was in prison outside Scotland. On release, he travelled to Scotland, where he approached a council for assistance with homelessness and housing issues. A few weeks after he arrived, Mr C was arrested and sent to prison. He was released from the prison on licence around a year later. Mr C's licence was revoked within a few weeks and he was returned to prison. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to comply with their statutory and procedural responsibilities for housing him, in the lead up to and after his release from prison.

We found from the evidence that the council did not know that Mr C was due to arrive in Scotland, and we did not find any failings by the council in the lead up to his first release. Neither did we find any failings in their handling of Mr C's application for more permanent housing on his first release. In addition, we did not find any failings in how the council dealt with Mr C's homelessness and housing situation in the lead up to, and following, his second release.

However, we did uphold Mr C's complaint about how the council dealt with his homelessness situation after his first release. They had a duty to identify accommodation that was appropriate to Mr C's needs. They had to do so reasonably, and in line with relevant legislation and guidance. In our view, their actions were unacceptable, as the temporary accommodation was unsuitable. It also appeared that council staff were confused about how to deal with Mr C's case; there was a contradiction between council records and the view of a GP who specialises in dealing with people who are homeless, and there was delay in processing Mr C's homelessness application. We made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with his homelessness situation appropriately;
• provide us with an outline of how they would deal with a similar situation in future, to ensure that the same failings are not repeated; and
• ensure that records of contact with homelessness practice GPs accurately note their comments about applicants, ideally supported with a written statement from the GP.

Summary

Mrs C owns a flat in a block of four. One of the other flats is also privately owned and the council own the remaining two. Mrs C complained about a number of issues relating to property maintenance and repairs. These included that: the council did not provide her with information about their responsibility for undertaking work; there was damage to her property and the council failed or delayed in fixing this; and the council failed to carry out repairs that she had reported to them. Mrs C also complained about the attitude of council staff, both towards her and to the handling of her complaints.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. When we investigated, the council told us that they had no agreement with Mrs C about repairs. They explained their usual practice when common repairs are reported to them or when improvements are undertaken in a property which is both tenanted and occupied by owners. They said that an owner could arrange for works to be done and to submit a quote to the council for consideration of reimbursement of the costs, as Mrs C had done in the past. They also provided us with evidence that they had either undertaken repairs in common areas or that these were in hand for a future maintenance programme.

We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint about council staff, because it was clear that she had not pursued this at the time as a formal complaint. Neither the staff recollection of events nor the record of Mrs C’s contact with them suggested grounds for a complaint. We also found no evidence to suggest that the council failed to respond to Mrs C’s complaints. We did find that they could have explained more clearly that their investigation did not look at new matters that she had raised that were not part of her formal complaint to them. However, we were satisfied that the council investigated the issues that Mrs C raised in her formal complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when his home was built in 1998 the council issued a completion certificate. This is a document that must be verified by the planning authority. It certifies that the work is complete and in accordance with the building warrant and relevant building regulations. He said that the council did not take reasonable steps to check that the building complied with the conditions on which the building warrant was granted. Mr C was also unhappy at the way the council handled his complaint when he raised the matter with them at the end of 2010.

Mr C had contacted the council in 2001 when he became aware that there were faults in relation to the windows and that water was coming into the property. He said that the council were unhelpful and did not identify any problems at the time. Mr C also took this up with the builder and the National House-Building Council (NHBC - a housebuilding standards company) and most of the faults were fixed.

We found that the problems that had evolved over time at Mr C's property appeared to be mainly workmanship issues that he appropriately took up with the builder and NHBC. We found no evidence to support his view that the council had inappropriately issued the completion certificate.

We also found that the council had acknowledged and responded to several emails Mr C had sent in relation to his complaint. We found that they responded to his complaint within a reasonable length of time, but reminded the council of the need to keep complainants up to date on progress and to give details of when they could expect a full response to the issues raised.