Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained that as a result of building works to construct a new bus station, a temporary one-way system was introduced.

Mr C lives in a road which was made into a one-way road as part of these works. A temporary traffic regulation order required all traffic to travel west and introduced double-yellow lines along parts of the south side of the road. Mr C said that, before the introduction of the temporary one-way system, parking was controlled by double-yellow lines along the north side of the road. On the south side, there were marked parking bays and, at the entrances to residents' driveways, white 'H-bars' were marked out. These were extended to prevent parking opposite driveways on the northern side of the road, if there was no driveway immediately opposite.

When the building works finished, two-way traffic was reinstated. The temporary double-yellow lines on the south side of the road were removed along with the marked parking bays that had been there previously. Mr C complained that the parking restrictions on the road were not the same as had been in place previously and that road safety had been compromised as a result. He raised his concerns with the council and presented them with a petition from other residents who were dissatisfied with the revised road layout.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council unreasonably failed to reinstate the original parking spaces and double-yellow lines. This was because the council have discretion as to what road markings are used as long as these are in line with existing traffic regulation orders and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (the regulations). Whilst the parking bays had not been reinstated and the H-bars may not be the same as they were previously, we were satisfied the council have shown that their decisions were made with reference to pre-2006 plans and the regulations. As such, we found no evidence of maladministration in their reinstatement of the two-way traffic layout on the road.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council unreasonably failed to take the wishes of residents into account. The correspondence showed that Mr C's complaint to the council changed after his initial letter of complaint (which was a personal concern about difficulty in exiting his driveway). The council responded to these concerns. However, when Mr C contacted them again on behalf of the residents, the evidence we saw indicates that the council continued to take the view that his concerns about the driveway were the main reason for his complaint rather than the residents' concerns about road safety.

We found no evidence to show that these group concerns were fully taken into account. Although the council had looked into safety issues, no formal records were kept of their investigation into the residents' concerns. We, therefore, recommended that the council consider carrying out a road safety audit.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council failed to deal with his complaint appropriately. While we were generally satisfied with the promptness of the council's responses and their explanations of their position about the markings on the road, we found that their responses did not adequately acknowledge the specific points that Mr C had raised and the reasons for his complaints.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider carrying out a road safety audit.

Summary
Mr C complained about how the council handled a request for an amendment to planning consent for a house to be built on part of a neighbour's garden ground. Mr C complained that the council had failed to assess the request properly and that the conditions attached to the planning consent could not be achieved. He was also unhappy with the council's handling of his representations and his complaint.

The decision on whether or not to accept an application for this kind of non-material variation is a discretionary one for the council to take. We are not an appeal body for the decisions of organisations. We can check a decision is properly made and will look at the process and procedures involved. If we find that something's gone wrong, we can make recommendations to put things right. In this case, our investigation found no evidence that the council failed to correctly exercise their discretion.

We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaints about poor complaints handling. Before we became involved the council had accepted that there were failings in how they handled Mr C's complaint. Our investigation also found that the council had failed to respond to specific questions raised by Mr C in his correspondence.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for failing to respond fully to Mr C's questions.

Summary
Ms C was the main carer for her mother, who was bed-bound after being discharged home from hospital, and who remained so until her death some two and a half years later.
Ms C complained about the council, who were responsible for elements of her mother's care. She said that they delayed over an application for direct payments made before her mother went into hospital; failed to ensure that an appropriate care package was provided; failed to provide respite care; ignored Ms C's power of attorney by convening a meeting of professionals without telling her; and misled Ms C over the issue of equipment, as well as not providing and maintaining clean and functioning equipment.

We did not uphold any of Ms C's complaints, as we did not find that the council had acted wrongly. A care package was in place for about fourteen months, with care supplied by a private firm, but Ms C felt that the hours were inadequate and was unhappy with the quality of care. She met the provider's manager and during the meeting told them that they should not return. An assessment with council officers then took place with a view to establishing a new care package, but Ms C ended this without the assessment being finished. Some issues that Ms C complained about depended on an assessment being carried out, but due to postponements this was not done until some six months after the original package stopped, and the process was not completed before Ms C's mother died.

Although we felt that it was unfortunate that the care package was not reintroduced and respite care provided, we did not find that there was any unreasonable delay attributable to the council. We also found that the meeting of professionals was appropriate in the circumstances. The issue about equipment was in fact resolved some time before Ms C complained to us, and there was no evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead Ms C as to who had been responsible for maintaining the equipment.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a neighbour's conservatory. In particular Mr C complained that the council failed to comply with their guidance in relation to intervisibility and window distance and as a result had failed to protect his privacy in his own conservatory. He also complained that the council had failed to take account of his objections about privacy and overlooking, in that they had failed to take action when his neighbour had reduced in height the planting that had screened one of the windows in the conservatory.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council's guidance was intended to be just that - guidance - and that planning officers were free to use their professional judgement when processing planning applications. In this case the council had explained why, in relation to conservatories, they had decided that the guidelines regarding intervisibility and window distance could be relaxed. We found no evidence that the council did not take into account Mr C's objections to the planning application. They had also explained as the planting was not required as a planning condition they could take no action when Mr C's neighbour reduced its height.

Summary
Mr C complained that, following exceptionally stormy and windy weather, the fence in his garden fell down. He reported this to the council but was not satisfied with the responses he received. He said that the council would not tell him when it was likely to be repaired. He complained saying that this caused a security issue and that he was seeking compensation.

Our investigation found that the council had told Mr C that a quote had been received and the job was listed on a programme of repairs to be carried out. However, because of the storms, the council had a backlog of such repairs to be carried out.

While the complaint was with us, the fence was repaired and was inspected by a housing officer who also issued an instruction for preservative to be applied to the new section. We found that the actions of the council had been reasonable in this matter and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C's mother told the council that repairs were required to gutters and to the seals around the bedroom window of her council house. When she asked the council about this over the next five months, she was told that the repairs were in hand.

When this did not happen, Mr C formally complained and new instructions were issued to repair both the guttering and the window sealants. Mr C also believed that, as a gesture of good will, the council should make a payment to his mother for the inconvenience. While dealing with the complaint, the council's director of housing had offered to redecorate but by then Mr C's mother had already done so.

We upheld Mr C's complaints that the council delayed unreasonably in carrying out repairs and in responding to the complaint. After Mr C contacted the council, the necessary works were put in place and the council apologised for the inconvenience caused to his mother, so we did not make any recommendations. We did not uphold his complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to make a good will payment to his mother, as they had already invited Mr C to submit a claim with details of the alleged loss.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had taken a decision to recover outstanding council tax by issuing a summary warrant. As a result he also received a statutory addition of ten percent of the outstanding sum. Mr C considered the council's actions were premature and did not take into account his changing circumstances.

The council explained that as Mr C failed to make his monthly payments on time he lost his right to pay by instalments. As he then failed to pay the full outstanding balance, he was served with a summary warrant and incurred a ten percent statutory additional charge. They pointed out that any changes to benefits arrangements did not remove the responsibility to the individual to pay outstanding tax.

We reviewed the council's procedures and the relevant legislation. From this review we were satisfied that the council followed the correct process when dealing with this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C is a member of the board of a charitable trust. He complained on their behalf that senior officers of the council acted to the detriment of the trust. In particular he alleged that the council's chief executive misrepresented information to the council and that the director of finance delayed in his dealings with the trust. Mr C told us that, as a consequence, the trust failed to receive monies they said they had been guaranteed.

The investigation showed that the chief executive had complied appropriately with the directions of an appeal panel that had reviewed the circumstances of Mr C's complaint. We found, however, that the director of finance delayed in responding to some correspondence for around six months. This was too long, and we upheld this element of the complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that:
• the director of finance should provide a formal, written apology to the trust acknowledging his failure to respond in a timely manner to their correspondence; and
• the council emphasise to all their staff the importance of responding timeously to members of the public who have taken the trouble to write to them.

Summary
In 2002 the council promoted the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvement Bill as an item of private legislation to the Scottish Parliament. Mr C attended public meetings and objected to the bill. He complained that during the consultation period the council failed to include full relevant information about the times and frequency of freight trains on the line.

Our investigation found that it was clear that an environmental impact report prepared and submitted to the Scottish Parliament was based on the expectation that there would be no night time trains. It was also, however, clear that the hours of operation of the line when re-opened could not be controlled by the Scottish Parliament or the council and that the council had pointed this out to the bill committee while the bill was being considered.

We did not uphold the complaint as we found no evidence suggesting that the council withheld information of which they were aware or deliberately sought to mislead residents or the Scottish Parliament.

Summary
Mr C is a landlord of property in a tenement building. In September 2008, the council were told that a chimney on the building was a danger to the public. Officers from the council's building standards department attended and say they put business cards through the letter boxes of the affected properties. Sixteen days later, a contractor carried out repair work to the chimney on behalf of the council. Mr C, however, said the first time he became aware of the repairs was when the council wrote to him about payment in August 2010.

We did not uphold some of Mr C's complaints. He complained that the council failed to contact him in a proper manner when they identified that repair works were required. He said that this meant he and the other owners were not given the opportunity to carry out the repairs themselves.

We found, however, that the council, as the local authority, are entitled to take decisions about dealing with a dangerous building in terms of the relevant legislation. It was not in dispute that the work had been carried out nor had we seen evidence that it was unnecessary. The legislation does not set out how owners are to be contacted in such a situation.

We saw no evidence to dispute the council's assertion that posting cards through the letterboxes of the affected properties is a tried and tested method that worked in the past. We noted too that the council had reviewed their procedures, and made changes in the way the council notify owners/occupiers when a building is considered to be dangerous.
Mr C also said that the work was unnecessarily carried out on a Sunday incurring extra costs. The council told us that it was done then because a hydraulic platform had to be used and to minimise disruption to traffic on the street, which we considered reasonable. Mr C also complained that the council's decision that the repair work was required immediately was unreasonable given that it took them 16 days to do it. In our view, it did not follow that, because there was some delay by the council in carrying out the repairs, they were not urgent.

We upheld two of Mr C's complaints. One was that the council incorrectly said that they could not trace him as owner of the property. We accepted that the council were constrained by the Data Protection Act 1998. When, however, we saw their evidence we were not persuaded that they had made all reasonable attempts to trace Mr C, especially given that the Landlords Register is available online and the council had conceded that they might have been able to ascertain his ownership details from there. Mr C's final complaint was that the council's request for payment was issued two years after the repairs had been carried out. This was not disputed, and additionally we found that the council had at first not provided a proper invoice for the repairs; and also initially miscalculated his share of the costs.

We note that the council have since taken action to, in future, provide owners with details of how costs are to be apportioned and to prevent delay in recharging owners after the work has been carried out. However, we also made recommendations to address the other failings we identified.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified; and
• deduct their administration fee from the sum due by Mr C for his share of the repairs in view of the unreasonable delay in billing him for the cost of the repairs and for the error in calculating the share of the costs due by him.