Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained to the council about a business premises next door to his property. The council gave planning consent for alterations to a workshop within the premises, including a condition that placed restrictions on the operating hours of the business. Mr C said that his family life had since been unreasonably disrupted by activities at the premises and was unhappy that the council failed to enforce the condition. The council explained that the condition was attached in error as, given the nature of the permission sought in the original planning application, operating hours should not have been considered. We, therefore, upheld Mr C's complaint that the council gave consent that included an unenforceable condition, as we found the planning officer dealing with the application should not have included the condition. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that it was inappropriate for the council not to take enforcement action in relation to the condition, as we found it would have been disproportionate and not in fact lawful for them to do so.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to take any action against the owners. He said that the owners had misled the council and the public, as the application did not say that they intended to sub-let the premises to another business. We found, however, that the owners were not required to include this information in their application. Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to protect the amenity of neighbours to the site. Although we did not uphold this complaint, we recommended that the council now review the position at the premises.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• arrange for environmental health officers to conduct a further site visit at the premises; and
• undertake an assessment of the activities conducted at the premises to ascertain whether or not an intensification of use has occurred.

When it was originally published on 27 March 2013, this case was wrongly categorised as ‘not upheld’. The correct category is ‘some upheld’

Summary
Mrs C complained about the way in which the council handled an outline planning application to build a house for an agricultural worker on a site close to her home. She made a number of allegations about the availability of information which, she said, prejudiced her in making representations against the proposed development. She said the council had not properly considered her objections to the development.

When we investigated the complaint we reviewed the council's planning file and complaints file. The information in these confirmed that, while Mrs C wished to view planning details online, not all of it was available that way, as some was held only in hard copy. However, Mrs C did manage to see the relevant information. The council's area committee, who were to consider the outline planning application, also twice deferred their consideration, and took other action, in order to give Mrs C time to see the information and to consider her representations.

We noted that Mrs C was given this extra time in which to see the information and have her representations heard. Although she disagreed with the committee's eventual decision, we found no evidence that it was not properly taken.

Summary
Mrs C lives in a council owned sheltered housing complex. Through an advocate, she complained to us that she was the victim of vandalism and pranks by staff. She said that her mail and electricity had been tampered with as a prank and a window had been vandalised. Mrs C was dissatisfied with the council's investigation into her complaints and failure, in her view, to take disciplinary action against the staff concerned.

While we recognised that Mrs C was disappointed with the council's handling of the matter, we explained that the outcome she wanted (ie disciplinary action against staff) was not something we could achieve. She confirmed that she understood this but nevertheless asked us to investigate and do what we could for her. We asked the council to send us copies of the records of complaints made by Mrs C, or on her behalf by her advocate, over the last 18 months, and details of the investigations undertaken by staff and the council into the individual reports. We also asked for documents relating to the investigation into Mrs C's complaint.

Our investigation found that Mrs C had complained about various issues over a number of years. Some of the complaints related to service failure (for example, a failure by sheltered housing staff to test the pull cord in her home). Some were about her heating and some were of a more personal nature and related to issues of theft (a police matter) and about the staff in the sheltered housing complex. Our investigation confirmed that the council had investigated all the complaints that Mrs C had made about repairs in her home, in some cases on a number of occasions, and they had taken appropriate action by offering to either carry out repairs or provide a replacement. The council showed us that they arranged for a clerk of works to check Mrs C's windows and were satisfied that these did not need repair or replacement as they were functioning properly. The electricity had also been checked and no faults had been identified, and Mrs C's heating system was working effectively.

However, we did find fault and upheld the complaint because of the failings in the way the council handled Mrs C's complaints. There was a lack of records of staff interviews. It was evident that council officers had visited Mrs C on a number of occasions to discuss her concerns and to explain that no further action being taken because of a lack of evidence. However, Mrs C is elderly and the council were providing her with an element of care. There was a lack of evidence that the sheltered housing staff had been interviewed about her complaints, which would have provided a more balanced picture of the situation. In response to our investigation, the area manager recognised this failing and we welcomed the steps he took to make relevant changes to the council's procedures.

We also found fault in some stages of the complaints handling, as there was a failure to progress the complaint to the next stage, and in the advice given to Mrs C about the statutory right of review of her complaint by a social work complaints review committee. We made two recommendations to the council about their complaints handling.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• review the procedures for investigation of service complaints to ensure that staff are interviewed as part of the process and that this is recorded; and
• review the information provided to staff about complaints handling and sending standard letters, to ensure that there is clear advice to staff about when it is appropriate to escalate a complaint to the next stage and when it is appropriate to send a letter with standard phrasing.

Summary
Mr C made a complaint about the way the council social work department were monitoring a child who was the subject of a supervision order.

Mr C complained that the department was not monitoring the child sufficiently as the child was not complying with the requirements of the order. He said that they could confirm his evidence by contacting the child's school and/or the local police. When the department did not uphold his complaint Mr C took it to a social work complaints review committee (CRC), but they did not uphold it either. Mr C felt that neither the department nor the CRC tried to check the information he had provided.

Our investigation satisfied us that the department took appropriate action to establish the situation with the child. We were unable, due to confidentiality issues, to share specific details with Mr C but we were satisfied that appropriate and reasonable efforts were made to establish the level of the child's compliance with the order and to address the concerns that Mr C had expressed. We noted that, for the same reasons of confidentiality, the council and the CRC had been unable to share the details of their investigations with Mr C.

Summary
Mrs C complained that the council failed to properly inspect her flat to ensure that it complied with the terms of a building warrant. The flat was renovated in the late 1990s and Mrs C purchased the property in 2004.

On receipt of the complaint the council inspected the area of concern and agreed that it did not comply with the original building warrant. However, as the fault could not be detected without an external inspection (and the feature concerned was at some height on the building) they concluded that it was not reasonable for this to have been detected when carrying out the original inspection in 1996. They suggested that Mrs C contact the original developer to ask them to remedy the problem.

Mrs C complained to us that the council should have detected this problem in 1996. Our investigation found that the developer had certified that the works were carried out in compliance with the building warrant. As we took the view that the council had undertaken a 'reasonable inspection' at the time, and, therefore, had complied with their legal duties, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C raised a number of issues about how the council handled an instruction from their own planning committee in relation to a legally binding agreement to deliver the implementation of a controlled parking zone.

Mr C maintained that the relevant officers failed to follow the planning committee's instruction. He came to this view through his own understanding of the meaning of the instruction. Our investigation, however, found no evidence that the officers had not followed the committee's instruction. We also found that the council had responded to Mr C's representations and had explained why they had not agreed with his understanding of the instruction given by the planning committee.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C are council tenants. They complained that the council made a mistake in the sale of their neighbour's house under the Right to Buy legislation by including a piece of their garden ground. When we investigated, it was clear that the occupier of the neighbouring property had purchased his house with the piece of land which the complainants claimed should be part of their garden ground.

The council did put up a new dividing fence a few years ago and re-positioned it on the boundary line which the complainants claimed is correct. The council had explained to the complainants that this was done in error, but the complainants did not accept this, complaining that their privacy and amenity would be affected. We did not uphold the complaint because it was evident that the complainants had accepted their tenancy with the garden ground they previously enjoyed and the new dividing fence had been put up in error.

Summary
Mrs C purchased a housing plot in a rural location from a landowner in 1996 and the contract of sale included a right of pre-emption to the landowner should she decide to sell, and obligations regarding contributing to works on an access track and for water supplied by the landowner to the site. Mrs C's plans to build did not materialise and in 2008 she sought to sell. When the landowner became aware of this, he offered to make a quick decision on exercising his right of pre-emption in return for a cheque for a particular sum in relation to works to the track. Delay would lead to a recalculation of the amount owed. After various solicitors letters, the amount sought by the landowner tripled. The landowner also threatened to open a quarry exercising permitted development rights. Mrs C refused to pay, the landowner served an inhibition on sale, and the matter went to court. The decision in 2010 was on balance in Mrs C's favour.

When Mrs C first approached the council in 2008, she was given advice by trading standards on the water charges. When she contacted them again when matters were before the courts, she was informed that she should await the outcome of those proceedings. After contacting the council in the latter part of 2010, trading standards arranged for various witness statements to be taken and then, on seeking the advice of the council's legal section they decided they could take no action as the matter was too old.

Mrs C made four allegations against the council, three relating to trading standards and one relating to planning. At the final stage of the council's consideration of the matter they accepted that the service they provided in relation to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 was flawed and two of Mrs C's complaints were upheld. A third complaint relating to the Enterprise Act 2002 was not upheld. While the council's planning service correctly informed Mrs C that they would not take action on a threat, as opposed to a breach of development control, they had informed Mrs C that they could write to the landowner concerned reminding him of the Agricultural Prior Notification procedures but then decided against that course of action but did not inform Mrs C. On balance, therefore, we also upheld that complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C lives in a sheltered housing complex and is required to pay housing support charges. His complaint related to the introduction of the Supporting People Scheme in 2003 which introduced a separate charging regime for housing support. Mr C complained that because he was a tenant prior to 2003, he should have been awarded protected tenancy status and should not have had to pay separate housing support charges. He complained he had never been assessed as being liable to pay the charges and that the council had provided contradictory information about the scheme.

Our investigation found that the protected tenancy status applied to those tenants of rent pooling landlords and that it had been introduced to ensure that those tenants were not paying the additional charge in addition to rent and services charges which they already paid. As Mr C was not a tenant of a rent pooling landlord he should not have been afforded protected tenancy status. During the investigation, we were provided with evidence demonstrating that Mr C had been offered a number of assessments and that the council had offered to meet with him to explain the supporting people scheme. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained to the council about an incident involving his granddaughter, where a misunderstanding amongst social services staff left her unsupervised during an outing. A Social Work Complaints Review Committee (CRC) was subsequently convened to consider the complaint.

Mr C then complained to this office that he did not receive a copy of the Social Work Services' report to the CRC members until two days before the hearing. The submissions for both parties to the complaint are required to be issued to the CRC members at least seven days before the hearing. Our enquiries revealed that the council wrote to the members, appending all submissions, four days before the hearing. They were unable to explain why this had happened and, in the circumstances, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for the delay in issuing the relevant papers in advance of the CRC hearing; and
• remind staff of the importance of adhering to the relevant timescales when arranging CRC hearings.