Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C left their dogs at a kennels for two and a half weeks. When they collected the dogs they found that one of them was in poor physical condition, and later had to be put to sleep. The kennels were privately owned, and were subject to an annual licence issued by the council. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to adequately deal with their complaints about the kennels within a reasonable timescale that would allow a prosecution. They said that the council failed to regulate the kennels appropriately and to adequately carry out their duties in terms of relevant animal welfare legislation. In addition, Mr and Mrs C complained that the council did not deal adequately with their complaint about the council’s handling of the matter.

We upheld one of Mr and Mrs C’s complaints - that the council failed to adequately deal with their complaints about the kennels. We found from looking at the evidence that Mr and Mrs C’s concerns were taken seriously, their anecdotal evidence was recorded and considered, and was weighed against evidence that the council obtained from the vets who looked after their dog. However, we found that the council did not interview the licensee when investigating the complaint. Although the council told us that they did not have a duty to interview the licensee and would only do so if the conditions of the license appeared to have been breached, there seemed to be differing views about this in the council, and we made a recommendation to address this.

We did not see sufficient evidence that the council explained their responsibilities to Mr and Mrs C; specifically that the council had to ensure the kennels were complying with the conditions of their license, and that information gathered had been compared against the licence conditions. We also found that the council's further consideration of Mr and Mrs C’s complaint did not involve any new investigation of the matters they had raised. We took the view that Mr and Mrs C should have been told sooner that there was no appeal procedure, and directed to the corporate complaints procedure if they wished to complain about the council’s handling of the matter, as they later did.

In terms of the complaints that we did not uphold, we found that it was for the council to decide whether to refer a matter for possible prosecution. The council decided in reasonable time that there was insufficient evidence and so did not refer this case. We also found that animal health and welfare legislation did not require the council to inspect kennels; rather, it gave them the power to do so if appropriate. The conditions of the license issued to the kennels replicated the conditions stated in the legislation. We did not see evidence that the council failed to regulate the kennels appropriately or to adequately carry out their duties in terms of relevant animal welfare legislation. However, given what the council told us about differences between their role and that of an animal welfare charity in relation to complaints of alleged ill treatment and neglect of animals, we were of the view that the council should take steps to avoid any confusion about this in future.

Finally, we found that although the council did not reach a conclusion that satisfied Mr and Mrs C, the steps they took to investigate the complaint about the handling of the matter were adequate, and the response provided a detailed explanation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• that the council apologise for failing to adequately deal with complaints about the kennels;
• that the council ask the service to document the recognised procedure for dealing with complaints about licensed premises. This document should make clear that licensees should be interviewed at the earliest opportunity. It should also make clear why there is no appeal against decisions made, and that complainants should be signposted to the corporate complaints procedure if they are not satisfied with how their complaint about licensed premises has been handled; and
• that the council should explain to members of the public how their role is different from that of the SSPCA, and should appropriately signpost members of the public with concerns about animal welfare in boarding establishments to the SSPCA at the earliest opportunity.

Summary

Mrs C owns a property that is leased to a council tenant by a letting agent.

Mrs C complained that there was an unreasonable delay by the council to act on her agents' request to make a direct payment of local housing allowance to them, not her tenant, because the tenant had rent arrears. Mrs C complained about the council's communication with her agents. She also complained about a failure to respond to her request to send the case to appeal, and to handle her complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

We upheld most of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had delayed in taking action to pay Mrs C's letting agents direct, combined with a failure to respond to her letting agents' enquiries when the payment was not made. When they responded to Mrs C's complaint, the council had already accepted that there was a failure to respond to the letting agents' correspondence and to provide advice about the appeal procedure in the decision notice. There was also evidence that the council did not meet their customer care standards in the handling of Mrs C's formal complaint. We did not, however, find that anything had gone wrong in respect of Mrs C's request for an appeal, as although she was told about her right of appeal, no request was received from her or anyone acting on her behalf.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a payment to Mrs C; and
• take steps to ensure that their procedures, and notices issued to landlords about appeal procedures, comply with the housing benefit regulations and Department of Works and Pensions' good practice guidance.

Summary

Mr C obtained a building warrant for a new double garage and bed and breakfast accommodation. Around 18 months later he found that the building warrant was based on the council's approval of plans for an earlier, incorrect foundation slab.

When trying to resolve matters, Mr C experienced delays. He complained that the council made further administrative errors and provided conflicting information as he tried to proceed with his development.

The council accepted and apologised that they stamped the wrong plans for the development. This error resulted in a building warrant being based on drawings that were different to the work that would be carried out. To resolve this, the council suggested that Mr C resubmit the correct plans as part of a forthcoming amendment of warrant application. We found that this was a simple administrative error, but felt that the council's proposed solution contributed to Mr C's problems with progressing the work. Had the stamping mistake been dealt with separately from the amendment application, he would have been able to progress with construction.

We found no evidence to confirm Mr C's assertion that the council lost plans for his building warrant application. However, we found that they made administrative mistakes on two occasions when providing stamped copies of plans for the building warrant's approval.

Mr C also complained that the council were responsible for unacceptable delays when dealing with his application for amendments to his plans. We did not find this to be the case. We were satisfied that delays were caused by the time taken to verify the appropriateness of an infiltration system Mr C had installed. We found that they had correctly followed their procedures in doing so.

Mr C sought to amend his plans so that a link door between his existing property and the new bed and breakfast accommodation was sealed. He complained that the council provided conflicting information to him and his architect about the feasibility of sealing the link door. We were unable to establish what information had been provided verbally, but were satisfied that the written advice the council gave to Mr C's architect was reasonable and in line with national guidance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• refund all fees associated with amendments and extensions to Mr C's building warrant.

Summary

Mr and Mrs A's solicitor complained to the council about an application for planning consent to build a house, which was made by the owner of land adjoining their property.

The couple claimed that the council's registration of the planning application was not valid on several grounds, including: the exact locality of the site was not shown; the plan submitted did not show the correct access to their property and the size of the plot was wrong; no information was provided about intended water and drainage arrangements; the applicant had not described access points to the site from the road as required by regulations, and Mr and Mrs A had not been notified of the application as they should have been. Mr and Mrs A were also dissatisfied with the council's handling of their complaint and brought the matter to us.

We did not uphold the complaint about the application as, on the basis of what must be provided in law, the council's guidance and the circumstances known at the time, we found no reason to find its validation unacceptable. We found that the council obtained all necessary information after checking the planning application and completed the process satisfactorily. We also found that responsibility for the accuracy of the ownership certificate, which is a prerequisite for validation, is a matter for the applicant in the first instance and the council is entitled to accept it at face value, and that neighbour notification happens after validation, not before.

We found that two letters from the solicitor were not acknowledged by the council when they should have been. When the council did reply they acknowledged and apologised for failing to respond to the enquiries and then dealt with the main points that had been raised. We, therefore, upheld the complaint about complaints handling, but did not need to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C is a commercial user of a harbour which is the council's responsibility. He said that in 2007 and 2008, he and others drew the council's attention to a derelict pontoon dragging its moorings. The council did not take action to have the pontoon removed, but in response to Mr C and others pursuing the matter they decided, as part of a general review of harbour finance, to introduce annual charges for the mooring of pontoons.

Mr C was unhappy about the charges. He complained to the council that officers had ignored the communications regarding derelict pontoons and then denied them. After complaining, he remained unhappy with the council's responses, and complained to us about the charges and the council's complaints handling.

We found that Mr C's complaint about the imposition of the charges fell outside our jurisdiction so we could not look at that complaint. We did, however, uphold his second complaint - that the council did not reasonably investigate his complaint after he made it to them. We found that they did not handle the complaint well at any stage.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the flaws identified in their complaints handling.

Summary

Ms C was liable for council tax. When she received a bill, she emailed the council for assistance because she was having difficulty paying. The council did not respond to her email. They later took recovery action for her council tax arrears, which resulted in a charge being added to her account. Ms C complained that the charge was added to the account even though she was making regular payments. She also complained that her emails were not answered and about the quality of the complaint response letter she received from the council which she said contained spelling and grammatical errors.

We did not uphold the complaint about the charge because we found that Ms C's council tax account was in arrears and she did not make reasonable attempts to contact the council to make a payment arrangement. Although we noted that she had emailed them, we did not think that sending one email during a four month period (while aware that they had not yet replied) amounted to a reasonable attempt to contact the council. However, we upheld her complaints that the council did not respond to emails and about the quality of their complaint response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their processes for responding to email contacts to ensure that, where appropriate, emails are acknowledged and dealt with within the published timescales; and
• reflect on the quality of written communications, as demonstrated by this complaint, and take appropriate steps to ensure that they are of a satisfactory standard.

Summary

In the first 14 months of her tenancy, Mrs C experienced six leaks from the flat upstairs. The leaks were repaired by the council within their normal timescales. However, Mrs C thought that they should have done more to prevent recurrence, and that they should redecorate the affected areas. The council decided that it could not have taken any further action to prevent the flooding as events were not linked. They were not, therefore, obliged to redecorate, as this was Mrs C's responsibility. However, they apologised for a delay of around four months in checking the upstairs flat. We upheld the complaints about the delay in gaining access, but as the council had already apologised for this, we made no recommendation.

Mrs C also experienced problems with carpet beetles during this period. At first, she found only a few which she reported to the council but did not pursue. She then found more beetles, linked to an infestation upstairs. The council treated Mrs C's house but had difficulty gaining access to the upstairs flat. They explained that this was unavoidable as they did not have the power to force entry.

Mrs C was also unhappy with the way in which the council dealt with her complaint. The council agreed they had not met deadlines and had not properly explained what stage matters had reached, and apologised for this. We did not uphold the complaint about the infestation as we found the council had acted appropriately, but we did uphold the complaint about complaints handling as we found that their responses were confusing. As the council had taken action to address this problem by nominating a single point of contact for Mrs C, we made no recommendation.

Summary

Mr C said that when considering a planning application the council failed to take into account a number of policies in the local plan for the area. He said that this was wrong, and that the council should also have asked the applicant to submit the planning application and the application for listed building consent together.

We reviewed the planning report, the relevant policies within the local plan and the legal framework under which decisions are made and recorded. We noted that the planning officer's report to the committee did not document all relevant policies. However, we were satisfied that the issues highlighted in these policies were taken into consideration. We were also satisfied that listed buildings consent need not be applied for at the same time as planning consent.

We did not uphold the complaint but we made a recommendation about the information that should in future be in officers' reports.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the way they produce and document reports to the planning sub-committee to ensure that these properly, and fully, reflect the policy considerations required by the local plan.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not ask for his permission before authorising the building of an access ramp for a neighbour, which affected Mr C's garden path. He also said that they had not responded to his complaint about the member of staff who authorised the work, and he was unhappy with the council's complaints handling. He said that there was delay in resolving a problem with a leaking pipe, which he believed was associated with the work.

Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably told him to resolve this with the contractor, rather than with them, and did not honour their commitment to restore his path to its original condition after the ramp was removed. Finally, he said that he had been denied a right of review under the social work complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that the council had already investigated and apologised to Mr C for failing to obtain his permission before the work began. They had acted on his complaint about a member of staff, but did not record or follow up on it, so we upheld that complaint.

We did not uphold the complaints about the problem with the leaking pipe, and that the council unreasonably instructed Mr C to resolve the matter with the contractor. The evidence showed that the council had not delayed in responding to Mr C's complaint nor had anything gone wrong in their handling of the matter. We also did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to restore Mr C's path after the ramp was removed. We found that they had restored his path and any dispute about liabilities that he claimed arose from that work was not a matter within our remit.

However, we upheld Mr C's complaints about the delay in responding to his complaint, and about being denied a right of review. Whether Mr C should have been allowed to appeal through the statutory complaints procedure is a matter of interpretation of the law and we could not comment on this. However, we did find fault in the council's handling of the complaint. We also found that, having decided that Mr C did not have a right of review through the social work complaints procedure, they had failed to tell him that his complaint could in fact be considered under the council's complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for their oversight and for the shortcomings in the handling of his complaint;
• take steps to ensure that the errors in dealing with the complaint are addressed and make any necessary improvements to the social work resources complaints procedure; and
• ensure that staff handling complaints in social work resources have guidance which makes clear the criteria for both the social work and the council's complaints procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that there had been unnecessary delays on the part of the council in passing his housing benefit appeal to the tribunal service. In addition, he was unhappy that the council's welfare rights team withdrew their representation just before the tribunal hearing, and without discussing the matter with him.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found evidence of administrative delays on the council's part in passing the required information to the tribunal service. We also found that the council had explained why they had not contacted Mr C before the welfare rights team decided to withdraw their support. However, we took the view that the decision to withdraw support could have been taken much earlier, with more notice given to Mr C. As the council also explained that they have taken action to revise their procedures, we made no recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in the handling of this matter.