Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had allowed upgrade works on a road in their area without instructing the inclusion of additional traffic calming measures that were agreed in 2007.

The council told us that after writing to Mr C in 2007, they had reached a compromise with the developer, and agreed for an independent safety audit to be carried out on the completion of works. If the future audit identified any need for further traffic calming measures, the developer agreed to implement them.

We upheld the complaint that the council failed to honour a commitment they had given Mr C. However, we noted that they had already acknowledged this and apologised for not informing Mr C of the change of plan. The council also appropriately explained the position and, as a decision had not yet been taken regarding the need for additional measures, we could not do anything further.

Summary

In response to a demand notice, Mr C paid a council tax bill for which he was not liable. The property concerned was a church manse (a house provided for a church minister). Following the departure of the occupier, Mr C had asked the council to forward any outstanding bills to the home of one of the church officers. However, the council named Mr C on the demand notice that threatened debt recovery action in various forms.

In an attempt to prevent the church officer being subjected to such action, Mr C decided to pay the money due, in the belief that, when it was explained to the council, they would refund the payment. The council refused to do so, even though they admitted that Mr C was not liable and said that they also believed that Mr C did not intend to take responsibility for the liable person's debt. Mr C complained that the council refused to return the money; wrongly named a church officer on the demand notice; and had not dealt properly with his complaint.

We upheld all of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council were wrong to retain money that had been paid as a result of their error and to name a church officer on the demand notice. We also found that the council did not consider the complaint adequately and in line with their own policies. We made recommendations to address these failings.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a payment to the church in lieu of the monies paid to Mr C's council tax account;
• consider developing a policy/procedure for refunding council tax that reflects best practice, encourages a flexible approach and has a requirement for each case to be considered on its own merits; and
• consider reviewing how they respond to complaints such as this to ensure they are fully investigated whilst being mindful the council's own complaint handling guidance.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the handling of both his planning application and his representations. In particular, he complained about the time taken to process his application.

Our investigation found that while Mr C's application was not determined within two months that was not, in itself, maladministration. The law provides for such delays and gives applicants an avenue of appeal. However, we found that there had been a breakdown in communication within the council which had added to the delay in dealing with the application, which we considered unreasonable.

We also found that the council did not handle Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints process. However, there was no evidence that they had failed to provide a reasonable response to the issues raised by Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delays identified in the complaint.

Summary

Ms C was living in temporary accommodation. She complained that the council unreasonably failed to consider her personal circumstances when they made offers of permanent housing in an area that was not her first choice.

During our investigation we found that, due to a severe lack of suitable properties, the council was unable to offer a permanent house in Ms C's preferred area. We found that they had offered two properties that they considered met her assessed needs, and which were in the nearest town to her area of choice. This meant that the council had discharged their statutory duty to Ms C as a homeless applicant.

We found no evidence that the council had failed to properly handle her application, however, we were concerned about the length of time she had spent in temporary accommodation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delay in offering Ms C a permanent house.

Summary

Miss C was dissatisfied with the council's handling of her and her partner's housing complaints.

We upheld her complaint. We found that that the council had not responded reasonably to the complaints and that they did not provide responses or updates in line with their complaints procedure. We found that they unreasonably considered the complaints twice at the first two stages of the complaints procedure, and repeated incorrect statements about Miss C after they had apologised for this. We made recommendations for improvement.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to handle the complaints in line with their procedures; and
• take steps to ensure that they keep complainants updated when they are unable to respond to complaints within the published timescales.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his neighbour's planning application for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a large fence. In particular, Mr C said that the council had used incorrect criteria when assessing the application and had failed to undertake a road safety audit. He was also unhappy about the council's handling of his correspondence.

Our investigation found no evidence of procedural fault in the way in which they processed the application. We were satisfied that the council used current guidelines in assessing the application and in deciding that in this case a road safety audit was not required. We did find fault in the way in which the council handled Mr C's representations, but noted that they had apologised to him for this before our involvement, and we made no recommendation.

Summary

Mr C's tenant contacted him to say that he had received some advice regarding his tenancy from the council. Mr C complained to the council about the advice his tenant said he received. The council investigated Mr C's complaint. They aaccepted that the tenant had been given some poor advice and apologised for this. However, they told Mr C that there was no evidence to suggest that other aspects of advice the tenant claimed to have received, had been provided. Mr C was unhappy with this outcome and complained to our office that the council had not reasonably responded to his complaints.

We investigated and found that the council had reasonably investigated Mr C's complaints, apologised appropriately to him and taken action to correct any errors they had made. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C is a solicitor acting on behalf of his client (Mr A). Mr C complained about the way the council handled Mr A's request for a travel allowance for his son to attend school by car.

The journey to Mr A's son's school took an hour and fifteen minutes. The council explained that their policy stated that when the journey to school exceeded an hour, lodgings would be made available. However, they added that there had not been demand for this for a number of years and that the list of approved accommodation was probably no longer in operation. This advice led Mr A to apply for a mileage allowance. His request was refused by the council. The council were also unable to provide accommodation, and said that Mr A's request for mileage was contrary to the council's policy. The situation continued like this for almost two years, when Mr A was offered a mileage allowance.

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide lodgings for Mr A's son and delayed in dealing with his applications for lodgings and mileage allowance. He further complained about the council's complaints handling.

Our investigation found that although the council had a policy to provide accommodation in these circumstances, they did not do so. They also failed to provide a viable alternative solution until much later. It was also apparent from the available documentation that the council did not deal with the complaint in accordance with their policy as there were delays in responding. We upheld both Mr C's complaints and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their failure to provide lodgings;
• backdate the mileage payment;
• apologise for their delay in dealing with applications for lodgings and mileage allowance;
• apologise for their delay in responding to the complaint; and
• emphasise to those staff concerned the importance of adhering to the stated complaints policy.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy about the council's decision to withdraw his children's school transport provision. He complained about the process followed by the council in reaching this decision, and about the the council's handling of his appeal.

During our investigation we found that the council had measured the distance between pupils' homes and their schools in preparation for the introduction of a new policy on school transport. As a result of the new measurements the council decided that Mr C's children were no longer entitled to free school transport as his house was less than a mile from the school. As this was a decision they were entitled to take, and there was no evidence of anything going wrong in the taking of the decision, we did not uphold the complaint.

We also found that as Mr C had disputed the measurements, the council decided to measure again during the appeal process. Mr C thought that the council should exercise their discretion in the circumstances and provide the transport, but the further measurements showed that his home was still outside the tolerances within which they could do this. Mr C still disputes the measurements but the evidence available demonstrated that the decision on the appeal was taken after considering all available information. However, while information on the appeal process had been given to Mr C we felt that it was not clear that the committee taking the decision could seek further clarification during the appeal meeting. We made a recommendation to address this matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• explain in the leaflet outlining the process at the education and children's sub-committee that following the closing submissions, clarification of information may be sought by the sub-committee before reaching their decision.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had changed the process for issuing Blue European Parking Badges. He said that he had twice before used documentation from 1999 relating to his Disability Living Allowance to renew his blue badge. Because this was no longer accepted he felt this demonstrated that there had been a change about which he had not been advised. He also said that the council had stopped issuing reminders for renewals. We did not uphold the complaint as the council provided evidence showing that their policy had always been that documents in support of an application should have been issued within the previous 12 months. We also found that governmental policy suggested councils could issue reminders but were not required to do so.

Mr C also complained that his complaint about his treatment, when attending council offices, was not investigated properly. We upheld this complaint as we found that the investigation conducted was not sufficiently impartial, and did not consider Mr C’s version of events nor address the allegations made by him.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified with the manner in which they dealt with his complaint.