Local Government

Summary

Mr C and his partner (Ms D) complained that the council removed items from the garden of their council house after the end of their tenancy. The couple claimed that the council did this despite having agreed beforehand that they could collect the items later. They also complained that the council charged them for clearing these items as well as for the removal of kitchen equipment which they said they were told they could leave.

We found that the council's policies were clear, and confirmed that tenants must remove all property, including kitchen equipment such as that left by Mr C and Ms D, when they give up a tenancy. They also said that this was explained to Mr C and Ms D, and provided evidence that the couple had signed an 'end of tenancy' form saying they understood this. We did not uphold Mr C and Ms D's complaint as we found insufficient evidence to conclude that the council told them that they could leave items behind to be collected later.

Summary

Mr C alerted his local council that his neighbour had undertaken development without planning consent. The council investigated and required the neighbour to apply for retrospective planning consent. Mr C took the opportunity to make representations about the development, and the council confirmed that these would form part of the assessment which would be carried out before the application was determined. The council notified Mr C of their decision but he complained that this had been taken without visiting his property to view the development from his perspective and said that the council had not been impartial in their handling of the matter.

During our investigation we took advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that a planning officer can form a judgement about neighbouring properties from visiting the development site. Visiting every property is not practical, bearing in mind that there could be multiple objectors, and the planning adviser agreed that this was a matter for a planner's professional judgement. We did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence that Mr C’s representations were not fully considered, and the decision about whether to visit his property was a matter of professional judgement.

Summary

Mr C lived in an old building, which was in a state of disrepair. He and other owners sought the assistance of a local councillor, who arranged for the owners to meet with council officers. The owners initially instructed a firm of surveyors whose report specified the extent of disrepair. With changes in the funding of private sector repairs taking effect from 1 April 2010, the owners agreed with the officers' proposal that the council serve a notice under section 108 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. This would entitle owners to a minimum grant of 50 percent of eligible costs (less recording fee), with the possibility of a higher percentage based on an assessment of income over the previous 52 weeks. Applications would require to be submitted and approved by 31 March 2010. The notice was served in August 2009.

In January 2010, Mr C applied for a grant, and declared that his then partner was resident. The council asked for her income details and Mr C supplied them in mid-February. It turned out that Mr C's partner's income had been such that Mr C's application would attract only the minimum (50 percent) grant. While the application for the grant was still under consideration, Mr C's partner left the household. Mr C told a council grant officer about this when they visited him in late March. Mr C was awarded the minimum 50 percent grant (less recording fee).

Mr C was unhappy, as he felt that with his partner no longer resident, the application should only take his income into account, leading to a higher percentage of grant being awarded to him. Mr C's complaint to us had four aspects: that the council failed to provide him with clarity on his entitlement to repairs grants and how these are calculated; delayed, failed to communicate, and were inefficient in the re-assessment of his grant application; failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with their own complaints procedures; and failed to follow through with their requirement to ensure that plans were in place to adequately maintain the building in future.

We did not uphold the first two complaints. Our investigation found that the council provided adequate general information, and that the assessment takes into account the personal income of those declared to be resident over the year immediately before the date of application. Partners were included in the assessment, as the advice assumed that if two people live together as partners they have a shared interest in the condition of their property and should be assessed at the date of application. We, therefore, did not find that the council had done anything wrong in taking Mr C's former partner's income into account. We did find that the council failed to respond at one stage of their complaint procedure or to pursue with owners a proactive five year maintenance plan. We upheld these complaints and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the information it gives to those seeking financial assistance in respect of private sector repairs; and
• follow up on a particular letter and take any requisite action in reminding owners of the building of action that they expect from them.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy because the name of their property appeared in documents that were part of the council's local development plan (a document that says what type of development should take place where, and identifies areas that should not be developed). They said that no-one asked their permission before doing this, nor were they given any warning beforehand. They were unhappy, because they felt that the council's actions went against legislation and guidance, and told us that they felt this had affected the value of their property.

When our planning adviser looked at the information provided both by Mr and Mrs C and the council, he found that the council had acted satisfactorily and followed appropriate guidance. Our investigation found that the council did not need to obtain Mr and Mrs C's permission, or give them prior warning about this, so we did not uphold the complaint.

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.