Local Government

Summary
Mrs C raised a number of complaints about the social work department's involvement with her daughter and grandchildren. She contacted us because she did not feel that the council had dealt with her concerns appropriately. The council admitted failings but said they had taken action to ensure that staff adhered to the correct procedures in future.

We upheld Mrs C's complaints that the council had failed to respond or delayed in responding to her letters and had failed to provide her with a written response to the points she had raised. We noted that the council had already taken some action to address the failings they identified when looking at her complaint, but made further recommendations to ensure that the action taken is carried out and explained to Mrs C.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• write to the Ombudsman to explain what action the executive director for social work has taken in response to this complaint and provide evidence that any measures for change have been implemented;
• apologise to Mrs C for not answering her complaint fully in the first instance; and
• provide a written response to the outstanding concerns listed in Mrs C's email.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council did not act in response to his concerns about dog faeces in his neighbour's garden and flooding caused by concrete slabs that his neighbour had laid in both front and rear gardens. There was no natural drainage and when it rained, water ran off the slabs, flooding Mr C's garden. As his neighbour did not clean up their dogs' faeces, this caused a foul smell and when it rained the faeces were also washed into Mr C's garden. Mr C also said that piles of rubble were pushed up against his fence from his neighbour's side.

We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. We found that the council investigated the issues he had raised and confirmed that there was a problem with the slabs and dog faeces. As the next-door property was scheduled to be extended, plans were put in place to re-lay the slabs and introduce drainage while the tenants were decanted. Although this caused some delay to the matter being addressed, and the nature of the work to be carried out changed periodically, we felt that this was a reasonable solution to the flooding problem. However, the council failed to clarify whether they had taken steps to remove the rubble. We recommended that they ensure that this issue had been addressed.

The council's neighbourhoods team leader had also advised staff to monitor the situation weekly. If any faeces were witnessed, the council would clear this and charge the tenants for the work. We found that weekly monitoring took place, but that when faeces were found staff simply asked the tenant to clean these up. The council did not take the specific action proposed by the neighbourhoods team leader, which may have resulted in prolonged monitoring and the situation being allowed to become drawn out. We also found that there was initially a significant delay in action being taken to address the issue of dog faeces.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for the delay in dealing with the dog faeces issue;
• consider reviewing their approach to monitoring and acting upon complaints of dog fouling at their properties; and
• ensure that the issue of the chips and rubble reputedly piled against Mr C’s fence has been addressed.

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.