Local Government

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.

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.