Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of five outstanding statutory notices which had been issued in respect of his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify his solicitor of one of the statutory notices when he was considering purchasing the property. The council apologised to Mr C that, due to an error, Mr C's solicitor had not been provided with information on this statutory notice. However, they provided evidence that full information on all the outstanding statutory notices had been provided to the previous owner and their solicitor, including the statutory notice in question. Given that the information had been provided to one of the two parties in the sale of the property, we considered that information on the statutory notice should have been available when Mr C was purchasing the property. The council's position, based on legal advice they had obtained, was that they were entitled to pursue Mr C for the debt outstanding on this statutory notice. While we upheld the complaint, given the action taken by the council to apologise to Mr C we made no further recommendations.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide his solicitor with an accurate estimate of the costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices. Mr C complained that the figure given to his solicitor increased substantially in the final invoice. The council provided evidence of information that had been provided on the estimated costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices, including advice that the final cost was still being calculated. They further explained that a search of their records had provided no documentation detailing the estimate of cost suggested by Mr C. In the absence of evidence that written confirmation was provided by the council that the cost for the works would be as suggested by Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council's report on a planning application to their planning committee contained a number of factual inaccuracies. We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that any inaccuracies in the report were minor and were not significant to the overall assessment of the application. The report did not mislead the members of the committee and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the manner in which the council had handled an economic statement that the planning applicant had submitted to support the application had been inadequate and we made a recommendation to the council in relation to this.

Mr C also complained to us that the council had not reasonably handled his enquiries to them about why they had notified residents that the previous application had been withdrawn after they were notified of the new application. We found that the council's response to Mr C on this matter should have included more information about why the problem occurred and the steps they had taken to try to prevent this happening again. We upheld this aspect of this complaint. We also made a recommendation to the council about the letter used to advise planning objectors of the withdrawal of an application in expectation of the submission of a new one.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures for requesting or passively receiving supporting economic statements; and
• review the letter used to advise objectors of the withdrawal of an application in expectation of the submission of a new one.

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint about the council who she stated were not regularly cleaning the street and emptying bins outside her business premises. She had contacted the council on several occasions about this matter but remained unhappy with the response as often nobody would come out to clean or there would be a delay in this being actioned.

The council arranged for additional staff to attend the area and clean but they were unable to access with the road sweeper due to parked cars. They re-arranged to attend and cleaned the immediate area in front of Mrs C's business. She was unhappy about this as there was broken glass on the pavement nearby and rubbish was clogging up the drains. She reported this to the council who escalated her complaint. In their final response they offered an apology for any inconvenience and arranged for a further clean of the street.

Mrs C remained unhappy and asked SPSO to investigate her complaint. We obtained information from the council including case notes and evidence of their local procedures. There was no contrary evidence provided by the council to indicate that they had been meeting their obligations. As Mrs C's business was in a shopping street, local procedure meant it should be cleaned daily. The council had also indicated that they had an increased budget for the new financial year and therefore would be able to improve their street cleaning operations. In light of the absence of any evidence that the street area had been cleaned daily as required, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the standard of street cleaning in her area, particularly in the autumn when leaves are blocking drains and causing flooding. She said that despite her reporting problems with blocked drains and leaf litter many times via the council's online reporting system, and despite the council's agreement that they would carry out a deep clean of the street and add the street to their list for priority leaf removal in the autumn, the council failed to take reasonable steps to effectively clear the street.

The council acknowledged to us their failures to effectively clear Ms C's street when requested to do so and the evidence we considered supported this. As a result, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C, if they have not already done so, for failing to clean her street in line with their responsibilities.
• Arrange for a full street clean to be carried out in Ms C's street, if they have not already done so.
• Add Ms C to their list as a priority for leaf removal during the autumn due to the risk of flooding.

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

• Staff should be aware of their duty to record and action requests for street cleaning, in line with their responsibilities.

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

Miss C complained that staff had unreasonably carried out a hold on her son (Mr A) at his school. The council explained that the decision to carry out the hold was appropriate in terms of the staff's duty of care to keep Mr A safe, and had been carried out by appropriately trained and qualified staff.

Miss C was also concerned that Mr A's leg had been hurt as a result of the hold. During our investigation we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated this matter had been investigated. While the council explained they were unable to establish if Mr A had been hurt during the hold, they felt this was unlikely. We found no evidence that the council had failed to handle the incident in line with their de-escalation policy. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

However, we were concerned that a written statement had not been taken from Mr A after the incident. The views of Miss C and the staff involved had been obtained and while the council had explained why the views of Mr A had not been obtained, we considered that the council should have recorded their reasoning for not obtaining a statement.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• record the reasoning for not obtaining a written record of the views of the pupil after a physical intervention has been used.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about the way the council responded to his reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour's heating equipment. Part of this equipment was subject to a planning application, which was approved by the council's planning service following input from the council's environmental health department. This permission was subject to three conditions, two of which related to noise output and one of which related to the erection of a fence around the equipment. Mr C felt that the equipment was being operated in breach of all three conditions and that the noise from the equipment was a statutory nuisance. He was not satisfied with the way the council responded to these concerns and he complained to the council about this.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the council said that these matters were jointly investigated by the planning service and the environmental health department. We took independent advice from a planning adviser and an environmental health adviser. The planning adviser noted that enforcement action was a discretionary power, and was satisfied that the council's planning department took reasonable steps to investigate whether there had been a breach in planning permission. However, they noted that one of the planning conditions could have been specified more precisely, which would have reduced the scope for misinterpretation. Although they did not consider that the condition was unenforceable, they noted that this was a learning point for the council. Although we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we made a recommendation in relation to this.

During our investigation, we found an instance where a council officer made inappropriate comments about one party of the planning enforcement investigation. We did not consider that the officer had failed to act impartially, yet we felt the council should apologise to Mr C and take steps to remind officers of their responsibility to maintain appropriate communication. We also noted that the planning service had not provided a clear explanation to Mr C regarding the reasons for the outcome of the planning enforcement investigation. We asked the council to remind officers of the importance of this.

The environmental health adviser considered the actions of the environmental health department in relation to the monitoring of the planning conditions related to noise and the investigation of the statutory noise nuisance. They noted that the environmental health officers had sought appropriate technical information about the applicant's equipment and had undertaken visits to monitor the noise output. On the basis of these actions, the adviser considered that the environmental health department had taken appropriate steps to provide the planning service with information about whether conditions had been breached, and to investigate whether a statutory noise nuisance was present. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The adviser noted a number of learning points for the council, and referred to recommended methodologies for investigating low-frequency noise complaints. Although these measures were over and above the statutory requirements for investigation of noise nuisance, we made a recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to a letter he had sent to the building standards department. We were critical that the council did not respond to Mr C's initial letter until he sent a further letter five months later. However, we noted that the council had apologised to Mr C for this and had eventually taken reasonable steps to address Mr C's letters. To the extent that there was a significant delay in providing this response, we considered that the council acted unreasonably and we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the planning adviser's comments in relation to the wording of the planning condition to officers in the planning service;
• remind staff in the planning service to maintain appropriate communication with all parties to a planning application, and to ensure that complainants are clearly informed of the reasons for the outcome of an enforcement investigation;
• feed back the environmental health adviser's comments to officers in the environmental health department; and
• apologise to Mr C for inappropriate comments made. The apology should comply with SPSO guidance and should also set out what consideration the council has given to ensuring they have systems in place to prevent similar situations from arising in the future.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to ensure that his property was in a suitable condition for letting. He voiced his concerns about damp before taking the tenancy, but felt forced into taking it as he was told if he did not do so then he would be deemed intentionally homeless. He complained that there were unreasonable delays in the council addressing the damp issues, and that they failed to communicate appropriately regarding appointments to carry out remedial works.

In the intervening time since we agreed to investigate the complaint Mr C had accepted a goodwill gesture of £500 and the offer to redecorate his home. We decided that it was not proportionate for us to take his complaint any further since we would not be able to achieve a better outcome for him.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the manner in which his deceased brother's property was cleared from his home. Mr C was unhappy that an environmental clean had been conducted, meaning that many items were removed from his brother's property and not itemised in an inventory. He was unhappy about poor communication from staff and that the contractor conducting the environmental clean had left unsealed bins outside the property with his brother's belongings inside.

Though the council were the deceased's landlord, the company who were property managing the tenancy on the council's behalf responded to the complaint. They advised that their policy is that when an environmental risk is identified, a contractor is required to conduct a full environmental clean of the property, removing all items which are contaminated or present a risk. They apologised for the breakdown in communication and interviewed staff about alleged conversations with Mr C. They also apologised for the bins being left on the street and explained that the contractor had worked extra hours in an attempt to clear the property ahead of the family's visit to the property, and the bins were left outside as there was no more room on the van. This was deemed to be a failing of the contractor and an apology was made in response to Mr C's complaint to them.

We found that procedures had been followed regarding the environmental clean and it was not unreasonable that items which were contaminated or posed a risk were not recorded on an inventory. In this case, it was also recommended an environmental clean should take place as the deceased was diabetic, so there was a needle risk in the property.

As the communication between staff and Mr C arose during verbal conversations, we had no way of determining what was actually said. We found that it was a failing of the contractor to leave bins containing hazardous material on the street. However, we concluded that this was a situational error which had occurred due to a desire to clear the property in time for the family to visit and noted that Mr C had received an apology. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's management of works required to be carried out to his property under the terms of three statutory notices. He further complained that they failed to provide detailed invoices, did not respond to his queries, overcharged him, and failed to deal with his complaints about these matters appropriately.

Mr C's complaints were a number of many made over recent years to the council about statutory notice work that had been carried out . In response, the council established a new complaints process to deal specifically with statutory notice complaints. This included a sample review by an external company to provide independent advice. Mr C's complaints went through this process and a number of shortcomings were found. Because of this, his invoices were greatly reduced and administration costs and VAT were waived. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to SPSO.

We found that the council had failed to manage the contracts appropriately and had previously charged him for work that had not been carried out. However, they had since taken action to address these matters and had reissued correct invoices. We found no evidence that Mr C's complaint was handled unreasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council managed his planning application to build a new home. Approval was granted by the council but a condition was placed which stopped development starting until works had been carried out on a new section of public road. Mr C was concerned that the council had not followed the relevant procedures. He was also concerned that when his case was considered by the local review body, their decision to maintain this condition was based on inaccurate information. Mr C also complained that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's failure to follow the relevant processes and procedures, as we found there had been a number of delays. However, we did not find any other failings in the determination of the application. The council acknowledged that their guidance for applicants on the local review body process could be clearer and we made a recommendation with regards to this.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the condition placed on the planning consent. Although we found that there were some inaccuracies in the information considered by the local review body, the advice we received was that their decision was not based on these inaccuracies.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the way the council handled his complaint. We found that Mr C's concerns were clear from his correspondence with the council but that their response did not properly address these concerns. The council accepted this. The council also accepted that they had not dealt with the complaint within the timescales set out in their complaints handling procedure. They advised us that a number of steps had been taken to address these failings and we asked that they provide evidence of this.

Recommendations

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

• The council should ensure that guidance for applicants about the local review body process is clearer regarding timescales.

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.