Local Government

Summary
Mr C, an advice worker, complained on behalf of Ms A. Ms A said that since July 2010 she had been regularly complaining about a communal leaking/dripping water tank. She said no effective repairs were carried out because of access problems to the flat above hers. The pipes froze in December 2010. This was reported but because of access problems the necessary repairs were not carried out. Mr C said that Ms A and her family continued to complain and raise their concerns but on Christmas Day 2010, the tank burst. Ms A's flat was flooded and she had to move out, first to her parents' house and then to a furnished flat provided by the council.

Although Ms A made a claim for compensation to the council's insurers, this was refused. Mr C said that the council had not acted on Ms A's complaints about the water tank, nor on her allegations that her upstairs neighbour was not living in the property. He complained that the council delayed unnecessarily in making an appropriate compensatory payment and failed to deal with his complaint in a timely manner.

As part of our investigation we considered the council's complaints file, all relevant emails and the repairs log for Ms A's flat. We also saw a transcript of calls to the council's customer care centre, and the council's complaints policy. We found that there was no record of all the calls alleged to have been made about this. We did, however, find that repair requests made were attended to. The documents also showed that the council had looked into Ms A's concerns that her upstairs neighbour had abandoned the property, but found no proof to substantiate this. However, we found that the council had not made a compensatory payment that Ms A was due in accordance with their usual practice. We also found that they delayed in dealing with Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Ms A for the delay in making her compensation payment; and
• the chief executive emphasise to all relevant staff the importance of responding to complaints and complainants in a timely manner and, where necessary, providing appropriate updates.

Summary
Mr C lives in a tenement flat. He complained about procedures adopted by the council in connection with a fresh application for a Housing in Multiple Occupation licence for the flat immediately above his own.

The complaint had eight aspects, including that the council delayed unreasonably in replying to Mr C's query about the applicant's display of a site notice and failed to inform him of an available right of appeal to the sheriff.

We upheld these two complaints, as our investigation found that the council failed both to respond to Mr C's query and to properly advise him about the availability of appeal. We did not find any evidence that anything had been handled incorrectly in respect of the other six points.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• review their notes of guidance to applicants cited to attend sub-committee hearings on Housing in Multiple Occupation licence applications to include a warning that failure to attend might have important consequences in respect of making a valid appeal to the sheriff.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had not stored his belongings safely while he was in prison. He had been living in temporary accommodation before beginning his prison sentence in December 2010. His belongings were bagged and tagged by a removals contractor and placed in a council owned storage facility.

When Mr C came to collect them in June 2011, he complained that some of his personal items were missing. He provided lists of items to the council. The council’s position was that the belongings bagged and tagged had not been touched or moved during the time in storage. However, at that time the council did not keep inventories of belongings kept in storage. Since October 2011, as a result of Mr C's complaint, they have requested copies of inventories prepared by the removals contractor. However, we found that this does not include a fully itemised inventory.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint as we found the current system meant the council could not provide evidence of what exactly they were storing and for whom.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• provide a full apology to Mr C for the failings identified;
• consider Mr C's complaint as a claim via the council’s insurers; and
• provide evidence to the Ombudsman that the council ensure they take itemised inventories of the belongings which they accept for storage in their facilities.

Summary
Mr C and his wife own several properties. He said that they had voluntarily registered them with all the appropriate local authorities when legislation to register private landlords was first introduced. While fully intending to re-register with the council, they failed to do so, and were charged a late application fee. The guidance says that a late application fee can only be applied after two requests for an application have been issued. Mr C was unhappy that the council relied on two email reminders, which he said were not received. He believed the late fee charge should be cancelled.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that local authorities may interpret the legislation and implement the Private Landlord Registration scheme as they see fit. There is no requirement on them to remind landlords to re-register. The scheme is run as an online system and requires landlords to provide an email address when they register. In this instance, the council chose to communicate with landlords using the email address that they provided when they registered. This is a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make, and we found no evidence of anything going wrong in this process. In relation to Mr C's assertion that the emails were sent to the wrong address, we found that they were sent to the addresses he and his wife had provided.

Summary
Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. In particular, she said that the council had failed to take into account her concerns about loss of privacy and traffic implications.

During our investigation we found that the council had in fact taken into account Mrs C's concerns. We were also satisfied that they had followed the relevant process and acted appropriately.

Summary
Ms C, an advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of Mr A. Mr A was concerned that, after he moved to a new house, disability access was removed from the property where he used to live and he could no longer visit the person who still lived there. Mr A was unhappy that the council decided not to recommend that the disabled access be reinstated. We did not, however, find that the council had done anything wrong in reaching this decision, and we also considered that they had taken his human rights into account when doing so.

Ms C also complained about the council's handling of her representations and their failure to initially recognise her as Mr A's advocate. We found that there had been failures in the handling of her correspondence for which the council had apologised. The council also apologised for failing to recognise her as Mr A's advocate and had taken action to ensure that, where someone is representing a third party, this is dealt with properly in the future. As they had taken action to address their failures, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C has rented his council house for 11 years. His neighbour bought her council house before he became a tenant. As part of this purchase, she bought the driveway on the gable end of the building, but the council retained a right of access for the tenant of Mr C’s house. There was no footpath laid when Mr C became a tenant but he was able to gain access for deliveries and to bring his wheelie bins round from his back garden. Mr C said that his neighbour told him that it was her intention to lay a path at some time.

Mr C and his neighbour fell out with each other about two years ago on an unrelated issue. As a result, Mr C complained to the council that his neighbour was making it difficult for him to gain access to and bring his wheelie bins round from the back of his house. Mr C complained to us because the council refused to agree to his request that they require his neighbour to provide a path. He believed that they were obliged to do so under the terms of his tenancy agreement. As there had never been a path and Mr C did not raise the matter before he accepted the tenancy from the council, we told Mr C that we could investigate but we could not achieve the outcome he was seeking. Mr C then decided not to pursue his complaint with us further.

Summary
Mr C has since 2002 owned a flat and teashop in a three storey building. There are takeaway premises on the ground floor. Mr C first complained to the council about smells from the takeaway premises in 2003. The council suspended taking formal action about this while Mr C pursued the takeaway owner for the cost of mutual repairs to the building. Mr C went back to the council in 2006, but formal action was again hampered by a dispute between the owner and occupant of the takeaway premises, errors by the council, and by Mr C in 2009 physically preventing the replacement of the existing external flue. Mr C complained to the council in 2009 and contacted our office two months later. The council carried out an investigation of Mr C’s complaint, which in 2010 resulted in the issue of a lengthy report by a senior legal officer, who found evidence of shortcomings by council officers. Mr C did not approach us again until 2011.

We told Mr C that, in respect of more recent issues, he needed to complete the council's complaints procedure. He then did so and, when he came back to us, complained that the council failed to take appropriate action to deal with noxious fumes entering his property despite serving several notices on the owners and occupants of the takeaway premises. Given Mr C's contact with us in July 2009, we considered it appropriate to limit our investigation to what happened after April 2010. Mr C's complaint to us was made immediately after the council issued a fresh abatement notice (an order to put right the cause of nuisance) in November 2011 and the then current occupant had been evicted. The current owner carried out major internal refurbishment and installed a vapour barrier and an improved external flue. Senior council officials who visited in February 2012 confirmed that the owner had effectively complied with the abatement notice. Since the refurbished takeaway re-opened in late February 2012 there had been no complaints. We decided that the council had taken appropriate action since April 2010 and did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary
The owners of three properties located next to another property with a large rear garden complained about a planning application. The properties are in a conservation area but are not listed as of historical or architectural interest. An application for planning consent was made to build a single house on a plot in the large rear garden.

The complainants objected, saying that this would dominate their rear garden area and have consequences for daylight, sunlight and privacy. The application, which was subsequently amended in the light of comments from council planning officers, attracted a large number of objections and other representations, including a representation from a local councillor (made in a private capacity). When the amended application was placed before the relevant committee, they decided to hold a hearing of parties and a site visit. The hearing was addressed by two of the complainants, and by other interested parties, and the application was given conditional approval.

The complainants alleged that the council did not take adequate steps to notify the councillor about the hearing and failed to ensure that the committee that determined the application was provided with adequate plans on the proposed development.

We did not uphold these complaints. We found that the councillor's name was missed from the list of objectors because of an oversight, but the evidence also suggested that the council took adequate steps to let him know about the hearing through the normal correspondence system for councillors. The complainants also said that a site location plan attached to the report to the committee did not show their rear garden arrangements. The council said that the site plan submitted by the applicants agents was based on the Ordnance Survey map of the area and was sufficient to validate the application and establish the proximity of neighbouring properties. The plan attached to the report was purely designed to draw members' attention to the location, and was not required to show ownership boundaries in neighbouring properties. We took the view that the matter of the map provided was not one for which the council was responsible, noting that the committee was in any case able to view the site before coming to their decision.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had considered a planning application for student accommodation as a 'local' development rather than the 'major' development that he considered would be more appropriate. He took this view because planning legislation says that developments of over 50 dwellings should automatically be considered as major. The council's view was that although the development consisted of around 100 bedrooms, as they were not self contained, they could not be considered as separate dwellings or flats.

We reviewed the legislation and government guidance and took advice from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we took the view that the council were correct in saying that the individual rooms could not be considered as self contained. The development was, in effect, one of around 15 units each containing a kitchen, four or five bedrooms and a living area.