Local Government

Summary
Mrs C complained that the council had failed to provide a winter maintenance programme for the roads in her area for 2009/10 and, as a result, there were occasions when the council were not able to get access to collect household waste because of the condition of the roads at this time. Mrs C and her husband received a reminder about payment of their joint council tax account for 2009/10. Mrs C wrote to the council asking whether an amended council tax bill would be issued to her and her husband to reflect the council’s failure to provide road clearing services and waste collection during a recent spell of bad weather. Mrs C also complained about the handling of her representations and the council’s actions in pursuing her for payment of arrears of council tax, and she complaints that her complaints were not investigated fully.

Our investigation found that, despite the advice provided to Mrs C and to this office that an operational plan was in place, we found no operational plan for snow clearing operations for the roads in her area for 2009/10. In light of the difficulties experienced by Mrs C and subsequently this office in obtaining accurate responses from the council about this matter, and given the length of time it had taken to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, we recommended that the council should consider Mrs C’s request for compensation favourably.

With regard to the council’s handling of Mrs C’s request for an amended council tax bill, we established that this was not dealt with properly. We found that the council failed to make clear in their correspondence with Mrs C that an amended council tax bill would not be issued to her and her husband. They also failed to make clear that payment of council tax could not be withheld whilst a dispute or correspondence with the council was ongoing, and they failed to make clear that on payment of the arrears, the summary warrant would be cancelled. We found that the council had followed the procedures set down in legislation to pursue Mrs C and her husband for payment of the arrears but were at fault in not making the position clear in their correspondence before the summary warrant was issued. We made a recommendation to ensure that a clear process would be put in place which would be communicated effectively to all stakeholders.

We also found that the council had failed to deal satisfactorily with Mrs C's representations to them about her complaints. In recognition that Mrs C was not provided with a satisfactory level of customer service, we asked the council to make a formal apology to Mrs C for the inconvenience she had been caused in pursuing her complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• provide a formal apology from the chief executive for not providing the complainant with a satisfactory level of customer service;
• ensure that the revenues department undertake a review of the current procedures to ensure a clear process is in place and is communicated effectively to all stakeholders when responding to enquiries or disputes about council tax; and
• consider Mrs C's request for compensation.
 

Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter who owned an attic flat in a listed building. The complaint concerned the council's handling of the implementation of a Repairs Notice, the percentage of grant aid to which his daughter was eligible and the council's alleged failure to explain why they deducted some items from the contract as non eligible expenditure. Mr C also complained that the council had used double standards in requiring that his daughter install replacement wooden sash and case windows when other owners had previously installed unauthorised cheaper PVC windows.

We found no evidence of maladministration and did not uphold any aspect of the complaint.
 

Summary
The complainant, Mr C, lives next to a hospital. The local NHS board decided to site a new dental teaching and treatment facility in a location adjacent to the rear of his home. Mr C made four allegations concerning the unsatisfactory handling of the planning application, including unnecessary delay in informing him of the decision, the council's handling of variations from the approved plans, and their handling of his complaints and request for information.

Our investigation upheld one aspect of the handling of Mr C's objections to the plan, namely that the council delayed unduly in informing Mr C of the decision to grant consent and alerting him to the conditions imposed. We also partially upheld the complaint that the council dealt unsatisfactorily with his complaint and requests for information.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to consider the points he made when he objected to a new development next to his home. He also said that the council had not considered the effect of this development on a listed building and had not taken action on his complaint that a block of flats were not built in the correct place.

We found the council had considered the points Mr C made in his letter of objection and had reported them to the planning committee. They had also acted reasonably in considering the effect of the development on the listed building. There was no requirement for listed building consent. We found that it was reasonable for the council to consider that the minor change to the footprint of the block of flats and the small change in its height to tie in with road levels did not have material consequences for other properties. We also found that the council had investigated Mr C’s complaints about the matter.
 

Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained about the games area in a new community campus beside their home. They were unhappy about light spillage from the floodlighting for the games area into their garden. In particular, they complained about the council's failure to take enforcement action on a planning condition about light spillage from the community campus. The planning condition for the campus said that there should be no light spillage beyond the boundaries of the site to the satisfaction of the planning authority.

We were satisfied from the evidence we saw that light spillage from the games area had occurred. Planning authorities have a general discretion to take enforcement action against any breach of planning control if they consider such action appropriate. We did not consider that the council had taken satisfactory steps to mitigate the effects of the floodlighting and to address Mr and Mrs C’s complaints about this matter. Although the light levels in Mr and Mrs C’s garden had been measured, this was done by staff from the facilities management group contracted by the council to manage and run the facility, and not by council staff.

Our planning adviser commented that the use of terms such as ‘to the satisfaction of the planning authority’ had been discouraged in the Scottish Government Planning Circular 4/1998 – ‘The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions’.

Mr and Mrs C were also unhappy that the council had failed to take action in response to their complaints about antisocial behaviour by users of the games area. The Centre Manager confirmed that Mr C had contacted him about this eight to ten times during two months in 2010. We found that the council had taken action to try to prevent balls going into their garden and had put up signs asking customers to mind their language.

However, the Centre Manager also stated that he did not have a record of each time Mr and Mrs C made a complaint. It was clear that management staff at the campus did not adequately record their complaints about noise/swearing and the balls coming into the garden. There was no evidence that the council established the facts and determined whether the behaviour complained of constituted antisocial behaviour. There was also no evidence that consideration was given to referring the matter to the council’s Antisocial Investigations Team.

When Mr and Mrs C made a written complaint to the council about this, they were told that they needed to notify the council of incidents at the time so that management staff at the campus could investigate and deal with the matter. The council also delayed in responding to their written complaints about the matter. In view of all of these failings, we upheld the complaints.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• remind staff that, in line with Scottish Government planning circular 4/1998, they should not use phrases such as ‘to the satisfaction of the planning authority’ in planning conditions for matters such as floodlighting. in such cases, specific and detailed plans should be sought from developers, and subsequent planning conditions should be worded to ensure compliance with these plans;
• take all reasonable action to enforce the planning condition;
• review their guidance on obtaining statistical evidence relating to a condition of planning consent from staff employed by the operators of the site to which the condition applies;
• remind the relevant staff involved in the case that complaints of this nature should be clearly recorded and investigated where appropriate;
• give consideration to taking further action to try to resolve the matter and/or referring the matter to the council’s antisocial investigations team; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified.
 

Summary
Mr C objected to a planning application being considered by the council. A letter advising him of the regulatory panel meeting that would decide the application and at which he could have the opportunity to present his objection was sent to him 14 days before that meeting. He received the letter the following day. He complained that this meant the council had not followed their own procedures for giving notice of such meetings to objectors. The council advised him that their procedures state that notification will be sent at least 14 days in advance and this was followed.

Mr C complained to SPSO that the fact that he received notice 13 days in advance of the meeting was contrary to procedures and made the meeting (at which he spoke) invalid. He felt that because the documents associated with the application were extensive, objectors should have been given longer than the 14 days set out in the council’s procedures.

Our investigation concluded that the council’s procedures clearly stated that notification must be sent at least 14 days in advance of a hearing, not that objectors must receive that notification at least 14 days in advance. As a result we could see no evidence of the maladministration or service failure that Mr C alleged and did not uphold the complaint.

When this report was first published on 21 September 2011, it was incorrectly categorised as being about West Lothian Council. This was due to an administrative error which we discovered on 22 September 2011, and for which we apologise.

Summary
Mr C was the owner of a private house. When he fell behind with mortgage payments, the lender threatened repossession. Mr C approached the council in July 2009. He told them that he understood his lender would repossess his home within four weeks, and submitted a housing application. He was initially given 100 points for underoccupation. He continued to live in his home and, before the court case for repossession in April 2010, he entered into a short tenancy agreement for a private let. He moved out of his home after the court case but still sought council housing. From 24 May 2010 the council revised their housing policy, and as a result Mr C lost his underoccupation points. He complained that the council had failed to offer him accommodation although he was homeless, and refused to give him priority points as given at the start of his application. Our investigation found that when Mr C first sought rehousing in July 2009, and in March 2010 when he secured a private let before the court case, the council were entitled to regard him as not homeless. The council were also entitled to revise their policy. In the period prior to May 2010, Mr C's points were insufficient to warrant an offer of rehousing.

When this report was first published on 21 September 2011, it was incorrectly categorised as being about The Moray Council. This was due to an administrative error which we discovered on 22 September 2011, and for which we apologise.

Summary
In error, Mrs A paid the amount of a council parking fine twice. She contacted the council to request a refund, but this was not paid until over three weeks later. As Mrs A did not have the amount of twice the fine in her bank account, the account was overdrawn, which attracted charges, and she struggled to meet her basic expenses. Mrs C complained that the time taken to refund the overpayment was unreasonable. The council advised that the time taken to refund the overpayment was due to payments to them not being collected immediately and the process for making such a refund needing to be carefully verified and authorised.

Mrs C was dissatisfied and raised her complaints with the SPSO. We decided that the council's explanation had been reasonable in the circumstances and could see no evidence of the maladministration or service failure alleged.
 

Summary
Mr C has over a considerable period of time experienced problems of flooding at the rear of his end terraced house and in the public carriage way at the front. He believes that these problems are interconnected and that the failure to seal joints at the kerb and in the roadway had, after periods of heavy rain, allowed water to seep under his house and re-emerge in his rear garden. The council and Scottish Water had carried out CCTV/ video inspections of their respective parts of the network, and found these to be operating satisfactorily. The council did not consider that there was a connection between the two manifestations of flooding. Some eight years ago they had in their capacity as landlord of council properties installed a field drain and offered Mr C the opportunity to have drainage improvement works undertaken but he declined.
 

Summary
Mrs C raised complaints with the council about alleged noise nuisance from a nearby leisure facility on several occasions. The council were unable, for various reasons, to assess whether a statutory nuisance occurred, but they approached the leisure facility informally about the complaints that Mrs C had made. After this the council were able to attend whilst the alleged nuisance was ongoing. Their assessment was that it did not constitute noise nuisance.

Mrs C complained to the council that they had not taken reasonable action. The council gave their view that they had and provided an explanation of how they had arrived at this view. Mrs C was dissatisfied and raised her complaints with the SPSO.

We considered that the council's actions had been reasonable in the circumstances and, therefore, did not uphold the complaints.