Local Government

Summary
Since 2007 Mr C has run a concrete business from a yard owned by his brother. In 2006 his brother objected to a planning application for four houses on a site adjoining the yard. The application was refused but was granted conditional consent on appeal and the housing development was begun. In 2008 Mr C placed a cement silo in the yard. The occupant of the house nearest to the yard told the council about this. The council inspected the site and asked Mr C to apply for planning consent, which he did. However, it was refused. The council then served an enforcement notice on Mr C telling him to remove the silo, but neglected to serve the notice on Mr C's brother.

Mr C appealed against the refusal of planning consent and the enforcement notice, but his appeals were dismissed. Mr C then instructed a planning consultant, who pointed out that the enforcement notice had not been served on Mr C's brother, and was successful in having the decision notice quashed in the Court of Session. A possibility remained that the council could re-serve the enforcement notice. However, after eighteen months of correspondence with Mr C's consultant on whether planning consent for the silo was actually needed, the council said that they did not consider that pursuit of enforcement action was in the public interest.

Mr C complained that the council handled the planning application for the houses inadequately and that it was inappropriate for them to have taken enforcement action. We did not uphold the complaint in respect of the residential application. We did, however, uphold the second complaint. While we did not find it inappropriate for the council to exercise their discretion, firstly to take enforcement action and then, more than two years later, to decide not to, we found that the processing of the application was flawed as the council did not follow a robust and correct process.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that the enforcement notice was properly served; and
• expedite any claim that Mr C decides to submit in the light of this decision.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council granted planning consent for a house on land next to his home. He stated that when the building began it was found that the new property had been built 1.4 metres closer to his property than had been approved. This raised concerns about overlooking from the upper windows of the new house into the lower windows of Mr C's property. To address this concern, one of two windows on the elevation facing Mr C's property was removed and a retrospective planning application was granted.

Mr C raised concerns that the overlooking of his property from the remaining window had not been reasonably acknowledged or addressed in the council's revised report to the planning committee. He complained that the report was misleading because it did not reasonably acknowledge the council's guidance about the recommended distances between windows at the relevant angles to each other. In their response, the council told him that they were satisfied the report was not misleading.

Mr C also complained that the council's responses to him were inaccurate as they said that a new property had been built further from Mr C's property than the plans approved, and that they had wrongly stated in another letter that the lane between the two properties was a public road.

We took advice from one of our planning advisers, who considered the relevant policies and guidance. This included the council's own relevant supplementary planning guidance, which gives the council and its officers a significant degree of discretion in applying these standards. The council followed the decision-making process correctly and the developer's action complied with the council's request. As the correct procedures were followed, we cannot question the merits of the revised planning decision.

Our adviser said that he did not find the report misleading and found no evidence of inaccurate dimensions (or descriptions) in it. He said the dimensions outlined in the council's letter to Mr C also appear to be correct, and that the angle of the window involved seemed to have been the subject of broad agreement between Mr C and the council. Our adviser saw no reason to believe that overall the council acted in an unreasonable manner in responding to Mr C's concerns. Although Mr C did not agree with their assessment, we found that he was not unfairly treated.

Summary
Mrs C's father (Mr A) lives in a very sheltered housing complex.

Mrs C complained on behalf of Mr A about the council's entitlement to charge him for housing support services. Mrs C disagreed with the council's interpretation of legislation in relation to their ability to charge for services not directly provided by the council and where the council had not themselves carried out an assessment.

We explained to Mrs C that it was not appropriate for us to get involved with disputes over the interpretation of legislation. Our investigation satisfied us that the council had responded appropriately to Mrs C's concerns, and that they had explained why they considered they were entitled to charge for housing support services.

Summary
The council carried out a survey of a sample of tower block residents about the service provided on estates. It asked for views on services, security and amenity issues.
About a couple of years later, they told residents that they had decided to make changes to improve service and security. This included removing existing residential caretakers and installing a CCTV (camera) monitoring system linked to a control room.

Mrs C and Mrs B complained on behalf of a number of tower block residents, who had signed a petition against the change. They complained that the council failed to consult with all residents before making changes to residential caretaking services and that residents were denied an opportunity to take part in the survey on which the decision was made. Mrs C and Mrs B said that the council had not addressed their complaint fully and properly and that there was a delay in responding. They wanted the council to undertake a further survey with all residents.

We upheld two of the complaints. We found that the council had failed to respond fully to Mrs C and Mrs B's request for details of the criteria used for the survey and the breakdown of the results. There was also a delay in responding to the complaint. We did not, however, uphold complaints that the survey was not properly carried out; that the majority agreement of residents should have been obtained; or that the council failed to address the residents' request for information about the survey and the cost involved, and for a review of the decision.

When we told the chief executive of the council of the decision, we also pointed out that the council had failed to provide us with all the information we asked for; and we sought assurances that there would not be a recurrence of this in future.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• write to Mrs C and Mrs B with a full response to the outstanding issues from their letter of complaint and offer them an apology for their failure to do so when responding to their complaint; and
• review the handling of this complaint to ensure that the council's complaints procedure is being effectively managed.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C's son has a genetic condition, which means that he has very specific and challenging care needs. Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of their application for bathroom adaptations to meet his needs.

The council agreed to fund adaptations to the bathroom, but Mr and Mrs C felt that these were lacking and did not take their son's needs into full account. The couple pursued a complaint through to the council's Complaints Review Committee (CRC). They complained that this process took too long. They also complained that the council did not use the relevant legislation as intended, with flexibility and discretion and that their decision regarding the bathroom had been made without proper consideration of their son's needs.

On looking at this case, we found that the complaints and CRC process was completed in accordance with the timescales set out in the council's complaints procedure. We were also satisfied that the council showed flexibility and discretion in their consideration of the bathroom adaptations, as these went beyond the minimum requirements of the legislation and guidance. We found that the council showed awareness of Mr and Mrs C's son's specific needs and that their proposed bathroom adaptations supported the assessment carried out by their occupational therapist.

Summary
Nearly four years after buying their home, Mr and Mrs C were told that the assessor proposed to increase their council tax banding from Band C to Band E, to take effect from their date of entry. The assessor did this under the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 because the house had been extended materially by the previous owner. This meant that Mr and Mrs C had underpaid more than £2000 in council tax. They felt that this was unfair and complained through a Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP). In responding to the complaint, the assessor explained that the delay was due to having an increased workload but no extra resources. He apologised unreservedly to both Mr and Mrs C and the MSP for the delay in rebanding the house and the inconvenience of the unexpected debt. Mr and Mrs C appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Valuation Appeals Committee against the increase in banding and against the increase being backdated to their date of entry.

We could not consider Mr and Mrs C's dissatisfaction with the decision, as we are not an alternative method of appeal for those dissatisfied with the banding of their home for council tax purposes. We did, however, uphold their complaint that the council delayed unreasonably. We asked the assessor what measures he had put in place to stop this happening again. He told us that he had introduced performance targets for staff and commissioned the development of a system to remove a current bottleneck from the process. We also found that the council had offered Mr and Mrs C the opportunity to repay the outstanding amount over a number of years. In light of this, and of the assessor's earlier apologies and actions, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendation.

Summary
Mrs C's daughter has a severe learning disability. For some years, Mrs C has accessed a certain level of respite care for her. When her daughter's respite allocation was reduced, Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of the decision to do so. The council's complaints review committee had already considered the complaint, and our investigation was about whether the review committee had followed appropriate procedures and policies and had taken into account all the matters it should have.

Our investigation found that the review committee had been provided with all relevant information, including the information provided by Mrs C, before arriving at their decisions on her complaints. However, it was clear that, while handling Mrs C's representations, some misunderstanding had arisen between the council and Mrs C. This caused Mrs C distress and worry. The council accepted that there was a need for clear and concise information to be conveyed to service users. We also drew their attention to the fact that it is good administrative practice for notes of telephone calls to be taken. Although we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, we made a recommendation based on her experience of contact with the council about this matter.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the handling of this case.

Summary
Mr C opted to pay his council tax instalments online. From 1 April 2008 the council required that, for those paying in this way, payments should start with a specified payment on 1 April and nine equal instalments on the first day of each succeeding month. When Mr C was late with his payments in April and May 2010, the council petitioned the sheriff for a summary warrant. This meant Mr C had to pay ten per cent more on the outstanding amount. Mr C told us that the council: issued the annual demand too late, allowing him insufficient time to make payment; discriminated against him as he did not pay by direct debit; failed to obtain proper authorisation to issue a summary warrant; unnecessarily shared information with their collection agents; and had not handled the complaint in accordance with their procedures.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had complied with the relevant regulations with regard to their annual demand and the process for obtaining a summary warrant. We also found that the council regarded payment by direct debit as the most efficient means of collection and so offered greater flexibility to such payers which we considered reasonable. There was no direct evidence that the council shared unnecessary information with the collection agents. Finally, although Mr C had pursued the complaint for over a year, the council had not been responsible for significant delay.

Summary
Mr C alleged that social work services were unhelpful with regard to the care of his late mother, who had dementia. He said that he was not properly involved in her care and was pushed into making decisions. He felt that when he made a formal complaint about the matter, the council showed a reluctance to deal with it and did not investigate appropriately.
Specifically, Mr C told us that the council unreasonably failed to provide patient transport to take his mother to respite care; for 21 months unreasonably failed to provide information on his mother's care and made inappropriate decisions about her care; unreasonably failed to remove a social worker from Mr C's mother's case; and failed to handle the complaint properly.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation revealed that no request had ever been made to transport Mr C's mother to respite care, nor had she been identified as requiring transport. In any case, there was no requirement for the council to offer this. The records showed that Mr C had been appropriately involved in decision making and had been kept fully informed. While it was clear that Mr C wanted a named social worker removed from his mother's case, he did not give reasons despite being asked to do so. In the circumstances, and as continuity was considered to be important to Mr C's mother, no change was made. The records also confirmed that the council had handled Mr C's complaint satisfactorily, and that he had failed to provide evidence to support his complaint, again despite being asked to do so.

Summary
Mr C complained about the way that the council processed his claim for housing and council tax benefits. Mr C said that that they discriminated against him by asking him to provide a written valuation (costing £150) of a property he owned, which was on the UK mainland. He said that councils elsewhere in the UK obtain valuation information themselves, without the applicant having to pay. Mr C also complained that the council inappropriately referred payment arrears to a debt collecting agency and failed to handle his complaint in an effective and reasonable way.

The council acknowledged that there had been unnecessary delays in the handling of Mr C's benefit claim due to it being administered incorrectly. The council had issued Mr C with the wrong claim form and did not ask him for all the information to support his claim at the one time or in a timely manner. They also acknowledged that Mr C's benefit had not been cancelled immediately when he told them that his wife had started full time employment. They explained that they had asked Mr C to obtain a valuation as District Valuer Services (a division of the Valuation Agency Office) do not provide valuations for properties outside mainland UK.

We upheld the complaint about the processing of Mr C's benefit claims. We found evidence that the problems arose because individual members of staff did not properly assess the information they had or take the correct action based on it, but we found that the council had taken action to resolve this. They had also apologised for incorrectly processing Mr C's claims and did not seek to recover the overpaid benefit. Our investigation also found that the council followed the correct procedure when asking Mr C to provide written evidence showing the current value of his property. However, we made a recommendation about how they might handle such cases in future.

We did not uphold Mr C's other complaints. We found that the council had correctly followed their procedures in referring Mr C's council tax arrears to a debt collecting agency. We also noted that although the council had not responded to all of the issues Mr C raised in his complaint in the early stages of the complaints procedure, they had provided him with a full response at the final stage of the process.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider reviewing how they handle cases where a claimant is unable to provide written evidence of the value of a property that falls outside the remit of the District Valuer Services.