Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to consider well documented problems with a road when considering his insurance claims for damage to his car. On three occasions Mr C's car had been damaged by potholes and loose chippings on a stretch of the road. The road had been surface dressed by contractors employed by the council in 2010. During the severe weather of winter 2010/2011, the surface dressing had failed. One of the claims was settled, but the council's insurers passed the claim made in April 2011 to the contractor's insurers, who also denied liability and said that the council were responsible for the maintenance of the road. The final claim was made in August 2011 and the council had prepared an internal report which explained that appropriate maintenance inspections and repairs had been carried out at the relevant stretch of road over that time period.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that the council had taken into account the problems with road surface dressing, and had decided that the contractors were liable for this. We do not reach findings in relation to liability or discretionary decisions (decisions that the council were entitled to take). We did, however, criticise the council for leaving motorists in a position that meant they could not claim against either the council or the contractors as both denied liability, particularly as the council accepted there were problems. We suggested that the council as the local authority may wish to address that situation. We also found that although the August 2011 claim was dealt with appropriately, the April 2011 claim was not, because the council did not prepare an internal report. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reconsider Mr C's April 2011 claim.

Summary

In 2008, Ms C wanted to create a driveway into her property. She asked the council for advice, and they wrote to her with this saying that planning permission was not needed. They outlined the circumstances in which it would be needed and who she should contact should she wish to have the kerb dropped. Based on that advice Ms C created the driveway. More than two and a half years later the council contacted her to say that they wanted her to either purchase a piece of land at the edge of the road (which they owned and which she had used in creating the driveway) or re-instate it. Ms C complained to the council but remained dissatisfied with their response and complained to us.

We found that in 2008 the council had not explained to her that they had responded in their role as planning authority, and that she also needed to get the consent of the council in a different role as owner of the piece of land. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C; and
• consider waiving their administration charges for any sale of the land.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of herself and on behalf of her niece and nephew (Mr and Miss A) who were receiving social care services from the council. Mr and Miss A lived with their mother who was their main carer. When their mother was admitted to hospital, they were left without support. The council arranged for a care provider to provide care at home to Mr and Miss A in the form of help with cooking, washing and dressing while their mother was in hospital. Unfortunately, Mr and Miss A's mother passed away shortly after the council put these services in place. The council then reassessed Mr and Miss A as needing additional help with personal care, managing finances, carrying out domestic tasks, daily living skills and sleepover care.

Mrs C told me that she had a number of problems with the care provider which she raised with the council, including one incident when she says they failed to renew home insurance for Mr and Miss A, resulting in them having to pay £700 for repairs following a leak.

Mrs C complained about the care provider to the Care Inspectorate who told the council that the care provider was not registered to provide housing support services (such as assistance with managing bills, protecting the home and learning life skills). The Care Inspectorate issued a report upholding Mrs C's complaint against the care provider, and criticising them for a number of matters including how they had dealt with Mr and Miss A's finances. The council immediately arranged for a new care provider to provide services to Mr and Miss A.

When we investigated, the council acknowledged that the care provider had been providing a care service to Mr and Miss A that they were not registered to provide. Section 99 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 obliges councils to ensure that their services are appropriately registered at the time they are provided. As the council had failed to do this, we upheld this complaint.

We welcomed the evidence that the council had taken a number of steps to ensure that this would not happen again. This included identifying any other similarly affected individuals and carrying out a tendering exercise to ensure they were aware which of their care providers are registered to provide particular levels of service. However, we considered that the council should have taken further action to remedy the injustices suffered by Mrs C, Mr and Miss A and we made particular recommendations to address these.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for failing to ensure that the care provider was appropriately registered;
• investigate the care provider's actions in relation to the renewal of home insurance in 2010/2011 with a view to establishing and remedying any financial losses suffered by Mr and Miss A as a result, reporting back to Mrs C; and
• review their practice in relation to taking social work complaints about a social work service provided to another person.

Summary

Mrs C was the owner-occupier of a flat underneath a council property. She regularly reported to the council that the actions of the tenant above caused her nuisance. Her reports mainly concerned her neighbour pacing the floor for prolonged periods, the constant drone of a television which was occasionally turned up to a high volume and clearly audible telephone conversations. The council visited Mrs C's property on numerous occasions and installed a noise recording system in her home for a week, but did not find evidence of antisocial noise.

Mrs C considered that the council's actions were inadequate and thought that they should install additional sound insulation between the flats. She asked us to investigate a number of points, including the level of noise required before the council take action; the council saying that the costs for potential work on other properties were a reason for not doing work on hers; the council's consideration of her human rights; and the response times to her noise complaints.

After considering the council's comments, actions and obligations, we found that the council acted reasonably in relation to all of the above points so we did not uphold this complaint.

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.