Local Government

Summary
Mrs C, a solicitor, brought a complaint on behalf of her client (Mrs A). An application for the development of a property neighbouring that of Mrs A was submitted in mid-2010. Mrs A objected to this application. In late August 2010 the application was approved.

Mrs C complained to the council that they did not reasonably consider the planning application – she said there were inaccuracies in the application paperwork concerning the width of a roadway. The council advised that while the location plan showed the roadway as being 2 metres wider than was accurate, the detailed plan showed an accurate width of the roadway. Mrs A was dissatisfied with this response and raised this complaint with us.

We found that as the detailed plan was accurate and objections relating to the width of the roadway were noted in the report by the committee who determined the application, there was no evidence of the maladministration or service failure alleged and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C has health problems and he found his contact with the council difficult. He complained that when the council pursued him for council tax arrears, they failed to take into account in the payment plan offered to him that he was on council tax benefit. He also complained that the council did not properly investigate his complaint about the handling of his council tax account and the attitude of staff. Mr C told us that it would solve his complaint if agreement could be reached with the council on a payment plan which was reasonable, because it took account of his circumstances, and if they looked into the handling of the matter.

The council offered to find a way of resolving the complaint by meeting with the complainant, or some other form of communication if this was more acceptable to him. Mr C agreed to this suggestion and we closed our file on the basis that a resolution was being pursued by the council.

Summary
Mr C is one of a group of neighbours in dispute with the council over the status of a road that serves both their properties and the site of a house recently granted planning consent. They said that the road and verge were not adopted by the council and that a road widening scheme that was required before construction of a new property could not be accommodated. They also said that the council have not addressed their concerns over road safety, that a turning area they consider is required to allow for refuse lorries etc is not adopted, and that, as owners, they would not consent to it becoming adopted.

The council confirmed that the road in question is recorded on their lists as being adopted and that this includes the verge. They have also responded to a private report obtained by the neighbours from a roads consultant which raised concerns about the road scheme. This report, along with the neighbours' concerns, was submitted to the planning committee when they considered the application. The council accepted they were mistaken in their view that the turning area was adopted but explained that, as this should have been adopted when neighbouring houses were being constructed, they would not take steps to adopt this area of road.

We considered the concerns raised by Mr C. We could not determine the issue of the adoption of the road or verge as this can only be determined in court. We found that the council had considered the safety concerns of neighbours, although we appreciated that the neighbours did not agree with the council's view. We also considered that the council could not stop the developer from proceeding with their development prior to satisfying the neighbours of the legal status of the road. As a result of this, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary
Mr C complained about the existence or otherwise of planning consent in respect of aggregate recycling activities (AR) adjacent to a housing development. This complaint was originally made against the council on behalf of a residents association. The council said that recycling activities did not require planning consent and this was the reason there was no planning consent in place.

In 2008 the council had said that planning approval was not required as the necessary consent was contained in planning consent granted in 1985. However, Mr C refuted this and said AR was being carried out on land that under previous planning consents should be maintained as agricultural land for animal grazing purposes. He said that the AR was a commercial activity, unrelated to household materials and composting activities, and that planning consent should have been sought. He acknowledged that efforts had been (and continued to be) made to minimise the disturbance and nuisance caused by AR, but he said these did not address the key complaint and he wished the AR activity moved. Mr C also complained that the council delayed in responding to his complaint and had not established the facts or dealt with it appropriately under their complaints procedure.

This matter was complex and during our investigation we made several enquiries of the council. The complaint was also considered by one of our planning advisers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The passage of time from 1985 to 2011 combined with the loss of part of a file made it difficult to evidence Mr C's view that AR activities (by the definition and degree as outlined in this case to be classed as ancillary) required planning consent that does not exist.

We found evidence that the council had addressed Mr C's concerns about AR – although we acknowledge, not to his satisfaction. We considered that the council exercised professional judgement in this matter and relied on the 1985 consent as being applicable to current AR activities. There is no documented evidence that the AR activities required planning consent and/or that the council overlooked or ignored this issue. Subsequently, there is no evidence that the council failed to ensure that the AR activities had planning consent. We did, however, make one recommendation because of the issues raised by Mr C's complaint.

We considered that the council appropriately addressed the complaints handling issue Mr C raised . We also consider that although Mr C remained dissatisfied with the response, they adequately answered the points he raised.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• consider regularising permission for the landfill site and ensure it covers all ancillary activity with appropriate planning conditions.

Summary
The complainant, Mr C, complained that the council denied him sufficient opportunities to arrange a time when he could allow the council's gas engineers access to carry out a statutory gas safety inspection.

We reviewed the procedures the council had in place in relation to the arrangements of appointments for gas safety checks and also reviewed what actually happened in this case. From our review it was apparent that the council and their contractors contacted Mr C three times by letter and left two postcards requesting that he contact them to make arrangements for access. As Mr C did not do so, the council wrote to advise that they had no choice but to take steps to force entry and to apply an administration fee.

As the council acted in accordance with their procedures, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with his complaint about a local trader properly. Mr C said he had problems with a car he purchased from a trader and asked trading standards to help. Mr C said he called trading standards many times and had to go the complaints department at the council and write to the chief executive before the trading standards service would do anything for him.

In their response to our enquiry on the complaint, the council provided copies of their complaints procedure, the criminal legislation relevant to this case, their enforcement policy and the code of practice on which the policy is based, as well as trading standards' electronic computer record on the complaint about the trader and copies of correspondence between Mr C and the council and the council's internal communications.

The evidence showed that the action taken by trading standards was in accordance with the criminal legislation they enforce, their enforcement policy and the code of practice. The evidence showed that trading standards endeavoured to mediate in Mr C's civil dispute and provide information on the feedback they received from the trader. The council responded to Mr C's complaints about the trading standards service in accordance with the timescales set out in their complaints procedure.

The council's trading standards service are duty bound to consider any breaches of the criminal legislation they enforce and it is for them to determine what action if any is appropriate. There is no obligation on the council's trading standards service to provide any assistance to consumers who have contractual disputes with traders. However, the council have chosen to provide a mediation service for consumers in their area. This does not mean that they are required to represent consumers but simply to mediate in the dispute.

The evidence showed that the council dealt with Mr C's complaint properly and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C raised his concerns about the council's decision to grant permission to his neighbour to install car access to his home.

He complained that the council had not carried out a consultation prior to granting consent and had not carried out an appropriate risk assessment. He stated that he was concerned about the safety implications of the driveway, partially as there was a primary school opposite.

The council explained that installation of the driveway did not require planning consent. The only permissions required were in terms of a consent to allow vehicles to cross the pavement and a road opening permit to allow works to lower the kerb. A qualified roads engineer from the council assessed the site against the council's roads guidance as safe.

As the council had complied with its responsibilities in terms of the relevant roads legislation and as they had carried out the necessary assessments, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mrs C was awarded a grant through the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 for repairs to her house roof. As the initial contractors could not carry out the works quickly enough, Mrs C obtained a further contractor directly who proceeded to carry out the works.
Once the contractor completed the works, they applied for payment of the grant. The works were inspected by a council officer and the grant monies paid. Mrs C was not happy with the quality of the works and complained that the council should not have paid the monies. The council had inspected the works and had requested further works be carried out before payment of the grant.

As it was Mrs C who instructed the contractor, she had a legal relationship with them and would normally be able to pursue them for any problems with the work. The contractor appeared, however, to be no longer trading. We found that the council did not have a responsibility to monitor or guarantee the works. We established they had inspected the works which were completed to their satisfaction for the purposes of making the grant payment. For this reason we were satisfied that the council had acted appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C's brother was granted planning permission to build holiday cottages on his land in 2006 subject to conditions about the improvement of the access road to the north. Mr C owns the road and did not give permission for the improvements to be made as he did not want traffic from the cottages using the road. Mr C's brother sought planning permission for improvements to the access road to the south in 2007. Since then Mr C's brother has advertised and encouraged cottage users to use the north access.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the breach of the 2006 planning conditions. He also complained that the council acted unreasonably when deciding that the access arrangements were not unsafe.

The council responded that they had considered the effect of the small increase in traffic along with other factors and decided that it did not result in unsafe access arrangements. This was a decision the council were entitled to take. Our planning adviser concluded that the council had given reasonable consideration to the case of enforcement. The adviser commented that the statutory enforcement provisions of the planning acts are discretionary, not mandatory, and Government guidance strongly advises proportionality and reasonableness in taking enforcement action.

In this case, we considered that the relevant 2006 planning condition was a very general one in the interests of road safety and although the condition would have improved accessibility to the cottages, the traffic using the north access did not exacerbate the existing situation and did not result in less safe arrangements.

Summary
Mrs C hurt herself after falling on a loose paving stone. She made a claim against the council's insurers but they denied liability on the grounds that the pavement had been inspected two days prior when no fault was identified. Mrs C complained about this decision. In response, the council explained that as they had an inspection process in place which complied with national guidelines which they had followed in this case, they could not uphold her complaint. Unsatisfied with their response, Mrs C approached our office.

We cannot consider the question of liability, we can only review whether or not the council followed their own procedures and whether these procedures are, in themselves, appropriate. Having reviewed the evidence in this case, it was clear that the council had the right procedures in place and that they had followed them properly. As a result, and as they could demonstrate that they inspected the site of the accident two days before it took place, and found no defect, we did not uphold the complaint.