Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about delays in the council's handling of a breach of planning consent he first reported to them some years ago, but which remained unresolved until recently. The breach involved a complex engineering matter, which the council told him was the cause of the delay, as significant research had been required on the part of the applicant and their architects to identify a workable solution. Regardless, Mr C believed that the timescales involved were unreasonable and questioned whether the council had taken sufficient steps to progress enforcement action.

We took independent advice from a planning professional. We considered that the informal approach taken by the council and the decisions made at each stage to allow informal negotiations were reasonable. However, we did not consider that the council had taken reasonable steps to follow up on proposed action by the applicants at a number of key stages, resulting in months long delays with no apparent progress on several occasions. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delays in their handling of his reports of a planning breach. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• At every stage, planning enforcement action and informal negotiations should be progressed within a reasonable timescale.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to appropriately handle a complaint he had made about the way in which they had investigated adult protection concerns he raised regarding his mother. The council admitted that they did not follow the usual complaints process in investigating Mr C's complaint. They said that Mr C made multiple complaints and continued to raise his dissatisfaction in correspondence. The council decided to deal with all of the issues raised in a single case review. After the first case review was complete the council agreed to a second case review.

Ultimately, we decided that the process offered by the council was equivalent to the complaints process, and although there was some confusion in respect of communication, ultimately Mr C got the kind of response he would have had the council's complaints procedure been followed. The complaint had been considered in the usual way by a complaint review committee, as was Mr C's right under the social work complaints process at the time. We did not uphold the complaint, however, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the confused communication regarding the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the confused communication around how the complaint was going to be handled. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined that he owed them rent arrears after leaving his tenancy. Mr C was part of a joint tenancy, having joined the existing tenancy of other people who lived in a council flat. Mr C said that the arrears had arisen due to council errors in the existing tenancy, such as charging for insurance that was not needed, and not notifying the existing tenants of a rent increase.

We found no evidence that the existing tenants notified the council that they did not need insurance. We noted that all tenants were liable to pay rent at the increased rate and that the tenancy agreement was clear that when the other joint tenants left and Mr C remained at the property, the tenancy continued. The council's procedure, in relation to former tenants' arrears, stated that the remaining tenant was liable for all outstanding arrears. In this case, Mr C was the remaining tenant. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter (Ms B), was a looked after child subject to a Compulsory Supervision Order (CSO, a legal document that means that the local authority is responsible for looking after and helping the young person). Ms B had a child (Child A) and spent time living with family and in foster care. While in care, Ms B attended school and Child A attended nursery with financial help from the council. This accommodation did not work out and Ms B and Child A returned to live with Mrs C. This was in breach of the CSO but the council agreed to a temporary move.

Ms B then enrolled at school in the area where Mrs C lived (a different council area). Mrs C sought permission to place Child A with her own childminder and expected the council to cover the costs as they had before. The council refused and Mrs C said that as a consequence she incurred a debt for which she held the council responsible. Ms B and Child A later moved out and returned to her previous council area where she was supported to live independently. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably refused to cover child-care costs while Ms B and Child A lived in the family home.

We took independent advice from a social worker and found that there was no evidence of an agreement that the council would cover the child-care costs. Mrs C knowingly breached a CSO. Although there had been a looked after child (LAC) review to consider Ms B's circumstances, there was no record of what had been discussed. A note provided by a social worker appeared to show that child-care costs had not been discussed. However, once Ms B returned to the family home, there was an expectation that she would be supported by her family as this was one of the guiding principles of national legislation (that parents should normally be responsible for looking after their children). Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we were critical of the fact that the council did not hold a minute of the LAC review and we made recommendations in relation to this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for their failure to record the LAC review. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• A formal record should be available for every LAC review.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C owned a flat in a tenement building. The council also owned flats in the building, and Mr C believed that a council tenant had damaged the communal front door and entry system. Mr C thought that the council were responsible for repairing the damage and covering the costs. He complained to us that the council had unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs.

We found that no one actually witnessed who was responsible for the damage. The council explained to Mr C that, unless there were any witnesses, it was very difficult to prove who caused the damage. We saw no evidence, such as legislation or policy, to support Mr C's belief that the council were responsible for paying for damage to communal areas that was allegedly caused by one of their tenants.

All owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council likely shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for a waste management facility. Mr C believed that the council had not followed relevant legislation and procedures in dealing with the application as an urgent matter at a meeting of the full council and had unreasonably allowed costs and the business case to be introduced as material considerations in the determination of the application. Following the council's decision to approve the application, Mr C corresponded with a senior member of council staff who he considered had unreasonably refused to answer his questions.

We found that, as required by the relevant legislation, in the minutes of the council meeting the council had recorded the reasons for the convenor being of the opinion that the application should be considered as a matter of urgency and that the procedures Mr C had referred to had not been relevant in the circumstances of the consideration of the application. We found that it was reasonable, in the context of the application, for costs to have been introduced as material considerations. We could see no evidence that the business case had been introduced as a material consideration. We also considered that the senior member of staff's response to Mr C had effectively answered his questions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C contacted the council's environmental services about a spillage of domestic heating oil (kerosene) in the area near to his home. Mr C had the spillage completely cleaned from his property but his neighbour did not. Mr C was concerned about the potential for recontamination of his property, and about the smell of kerosene, from his neighbour's land. He contacted the council, asking them to take action to deal with his neighbour's failure to have the spilt kerosene cleaned up. The council said that the clean-up was the insurance company's responsibility. Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response to his concerns and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that Mr C's complaint of smell from the kerosene spillage at his neighbour's property could potentially have been deemed a statutory nuisance. The council were unable to provide us with evidence that they had carried out a robust investigation into Mr C's complaint of smell, to determine if it was valid. Instead, it appeared that the council relied on a report prepared by environmental specialists working for Mr C's insurers, in relation to the clean-up at his property. We also found that what the council told Mr C about the matter was, on occasion, at odds with their internal communication. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for their failure to respond reasonably to his reports of kerosene contamination at a neighbouring property. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Carry out a robust investigation into Mr C's reports of kerosene contamination at a neighbouring property, with specific reference to both the potential for recontamination of his property, and smell affecting the reasonable enjoyment of his premises.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Share our decision letter with environmental services staff, who should reflect on their handling of Mr C's reports of kerosene contamination at a neighbouring property, with reference to the adviser's observation that nuisance can include having reasonable enjoyment of premises impeded or restricted.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about various matters related to the sale of public land to private individuals.

We found that the council's actions had been reasonable in relation to most of the complaints Mr C raised. However, we did uphold a complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to address the impact of proposed development on land designated as greenspace in a delegated report, but did not consider that this had any significant impact on the ultimate decision to grant the application.

We also upheld a complaint that the council had not responded reasonably to complaints raised in a particular email. We found that they did not address two specific points and did not discuss the need for an extended timescale with Mr C or provide him with a revised timescale for response.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• All planning applications should be assessed against all relevant policies.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should respond to all relevant concerns raised and, where an extension to complaint response timescales is necessary, discuss this with the complainant and provide them with a new timescale within which they can expect a response.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) who is a council tenant. Mr C said that her property had been in a state of disrepair with issues including repeated boiler breakdowns, faulty electrics, persistent roof leaks and draughty windows. Mrs A had been reporting and complaining about these issues for a number of years but the council had only recently brought the property up to a reasonable state of repair. Mr C considered that the time taken to repair the property and provide a final response to Mrs A's complaints had been unreasonable.

We found that Mrs A had been complaining to the council, about a number of similar repair issues, for several years. There were a number of repairs mentioned in the complaints correspondence which were not recorded on the council's repair log, meaning it was difficult to assess whether these were completed within a reasonable timescale. The council told us that they did not record the outcomes of their inspections. This meant that it was very difficult to assess the ongoing condition of the property or evidence whether or not the faults being reported persisted throughout the period in question, or only required repair later in the process due to damage or deterioration.

We considered it was likely that there were unreasonable delays on the part of the council. Additionally, the reason we were unable to confirm this was due to insufficient record-keeping. We also found that the council's complaints handling had been unreasonable as they delayed in referring Mrs A to ourselves. Therefore, we upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs A for failing to appropriately handle the repairs to her property and to both her and Mr C for the failures in complaints handling. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The repair log should be a full and accurate record of all repairs completed.
• A clear record should be made of repair inspections, detailing the inspector's findings.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be handled and progressed in line with the complaints policy.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained about the redevelopment of a park which backs on to her property. Ms C also complained about how the council responded to her complaints.

Ms C complained that the layout of the redevelopment of the park had changed and that she had not been consulted on this matter. The council explained that the original plans were concept designs only, and that it was normal for the specifics of the design to evolve as the project progressed. Non-material variation permissions were sought for the movement of some park equipment. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser said that the council's response and explanation were reasonable and was satisfied that the correct permissions had been sought. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to Ms C's complaint about the way that the council had handled her complaint, we found that the council had not treated correspondence from either Ms C or her representative as complaints when they should have been. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for not reasonably responding to her correspondence. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should be clear about what process to put correspondence into. They should check this with the sender, if they are unsure. Correspondence should be replied to promptly, or the sender should be told why there will be a delay, or why no response will be issued.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.