Local Government

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 Mr C's licence was revoked within a few weeks and he was returned to prison.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.

Summary

Mr C owns a holiday home, and there are two other holiday homes close by. The drainage systems for these premises empty into a Buchan trap (a device in a domestic sewer pipe to prevent vermin entering the pipe) inside Mr C's garden. If this becomes blocked, sewage floods into Mr C's garden. This happened in February 2007 and July 2011. Mr C complained that when the other properties were renovated, the council issued a building warrant (the legal permission to commence building work) failing to take into account his concerns about the drainage system. He also said that when he reported incidents to the council, they did not take action. He believed the drainage system should never have been approved and in view of his problems, the council should require his neighbour to change their system.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The council confirmed that when the neighbouring houses were renovated they assessed and tested the drainage systems as part of the building warrant process, and found them to be satisfactory. They were, therefore, obliged to grant the warrant. The problem with the drains appeared to be not their design, but misuse by tenants of the holiday homes, which caused blockages. The council had also said they would look into any incidents that Mr C brought to their attention, and we found evidence that they did this. However, their records showed that most recently Mr C had said that he preferred to resolve matters amicably with his neighbour. Taking this into account, the council agreed not to take any action, and Mr C had not contacted them since.

Finally, Mr C said he thought the council should have made his neighbour change the drains. We found evidence that the neighbour had said they would do so if there were problems, and that their solicitor had also offered this but Mr C and his wife had refused access. In the circumstances, the council took the view that as no nuisance had been established, it was not for them to contact the neighbour on his behalf. We considered this appropriate.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the council decided to install electric dry panel heaters in his property when his heating system failed. In particular, he was dissatisfied that he was not given the opportunity to refuse this heating system, as he said that other types of heating were available. He also complained that he was given inaccurate information about the running costs for the new system.

Our investigation found that, while the council accepted that it was good practice to consult, when Mr C's heating system failed they found that there were no other viable options, so they had not discussed the matter with him. We also found no evidence that the council had provided inaccurate information to Mr C.

Summary

In the early 1990's Mr and Mrs C converted rural steading buildings to provide two houses. These are across the road from the original farmhouse, which Mr and Mrs C also own. The land surrounding all three buildings is the property of a company, which employs agents to manage the land for them. The local plan for the area originally said that for planning purposes there should be a presumption against further development except for agricultural or family purposes, but planning policy later changed, as did the council's planning guidance.

In 2009, the company decided that they wanted to build houses on the land. After correspondence about what this might involve, pre-planning discussions and consultations, the managing agents withdrew an initial planning application. They applied instead for permission to build two single houses, one beside the steading and one beside the farmhouse. Council planning officers approved the application to build beside the steading, but refused the second application. It was, however, later approved with conditions, because the local planning review board overturned the officers' decision, despite objections from Mr and Mrs C and others.

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council failed to take local planning policies appropriately into account; adopted an inconsistent approach to the applications; kept inadequate records; and made misleading or inaccurate statements. We did not uphold any of their complaints, however, as our investigation did not find evidence that anything had gone wrong in taking these decisions. The planning policy background was complex, but we found that the council had taken all appropriate matters into consideration when amending their planning guidance and that planning officers were entitled to discuss the matters with the agents, and acted consistently when doing so. We also found that the complaint about inadequate records related to a temporary difference between the paper file and electronic information, and the allegation of misleading or inaccurate statements centred on a difference of view between Mr and Mrs C and the council about how to describe the number of houses on their property.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for a change of use of local commercial premises. Mrs C said that neighbour notification was not carried out correctly, which she believed meant that she and her co-complainants missed a chance to have the planning application decided by committee, and to speak to that committee. Mrs C complained that relevant issues, such as the residential nature of the area and public safety, were not taken into account when assessing the application. She also said that there was delay in responding to her and her co-complainants’ representations about the planning application and in telling them of the outcome.

We found no evidence that the neighbour notification procedures were faulty. We also did not uphold the complaint that there was a failure to take account of relevant issues. There was no evidence to suggest that there had been a failure to consider issues which were material to the case when assessing the planning application, or that Mrs C was not given an explanation when she complained. We also saw no evidence that Mrs C’s contact with the council was subject to delay when they responded but we upheld her complaint that she was not notified of the decision. However, as the council had apologised to her for this and, in response to our investigation, advised us that they had looked at why this happened and that a similar error should not happen again, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C submitted an application to erect a wind turbine. After he submitted the application, an airport objected on the basis that the wind turbine would create clutter on their radar displays. Mr C complained that the council did not give him reasonable advice before he submitted the application. He said that the airport told him that the council had a map of the areas where the airport would object to development. He said that the council had not told him of the likelihood of the application being rejected on this basis. He asked that the council refund his application fee.

Our investigation found that Mr C had not requested pre-application advice before submitting his application. There was no evidence that he had discussed the application with a planning officer. Although he had discussed the application with an administration assistant at the council before it was accepted as valid, this was about some further information that was required. We also found that the map used by the council was to assess whether a particular airport or similar body should be consulted about a planning application. The map should not be used to assess or pre-empt what any response to such a consultation might be.

We found that the council had acted reasonably in this case. We did not uphold the complaint and did not recommend that the council refund Mr C’s application fee.

Summary

Mr C complained that the condition of the footpath beside his home meant that he had difficulty in accessing his driveway. After he contacted the council about this, he had spoken to two workers marking up the damaged areas on the footpath. They suggested that he could expect it to be fixed within three weeks. When this did not happen he complained.

The council accepted that the footpath was sub-standard but explained that, for budgetary reasons, they had to prioritise more significant repairs. As the condition of the footpath was not poor enough to cause any safety risk, and they were satisfied that Mr C could access his home from the public road, they could not in fact give him a time-frame in which the repairs would be carried out. Mr C also complained about his telephone conversation with a council employee who terminated the call.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council complied with their responsibilities in terms of roads maintenance. We considered it reasonable for them to prioritise repairs, which was a decision they were entitled to take. On the matter of the telephone call, as we did not have evidence to conclude that the call was handled inappropriately, we could not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint.