Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council was allowing his neighbour, who had applied for planning permission and built a garage in his garden ground, to use the garage as residential accommodation. He complained that they should not allow his neighbour to do so and also that the building did not meet the required building standards.

In responding to the complaint, the council had explained that although his neighbour had planning consent for a domestic garage, it was for his neighbour to decide how to use the building providing it was not a separate residential unit and its use was incidental to the existing use of the main house. They also confirmed that the neighbour had submitted a building warrant application, with supporting plans, and the building had been inspected by building control officers and a completion certificate issued.

We were satisfied that the council were correct in that the use of the garage as overspill accommodation for family and friends was incidental to the existing dwelling house and was, therefore, a permitted use under the existing planning consent. We were also satisfied that the council did ensure that the correct process was followed in ensuring that the current building standards were met. As we did not find evidence of administrative or service failure in the way these matters were dealt with, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about a decision by the council to reduce an award of discretionary housing payment (DHP).

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably based their decision on the length of time he had been receiving the award, rather than on his individual circumstances. Mr C also complained that in making the decision, the council had acted unreasonably by failing to consult their policy on the prevention of homelessness.

We considered that, taking account of the relevant Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) guidance and their own DHP policies, the council had a wide discretion to reach a decision on Mr C's DHP application. We considered the council could take into account the length of time Mr C was in receipt of an award of DHP. We found no evidence that in making their decision, the council had not followed DWP guidance.

We also found no indication in Mr C's DHP application form that he would be under threat of homelessness were his application not successful, which could have prompted specific consultation on the council's homelessness policy. We did not find that Mr C was made homeless by the decision to reduce his award of DHP. However, we considered the council should ensure their relevant housing team and revenues and benefits team liaise with each other in cases where a claim for DHP is being considered and which may involve the loss of a tenancy and possible homelessness. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C sought a review of the council's decision. Mr C complained the council had acted unreasonably by allowing a manager to review a decision in which they had already taken part and by basing their decision during the review process on cash limits rather than a holistic approach required by council policy. We considered that the council officer was only restating the decision which had already been reached on Mr C's review request. We were also satisfied that the DHP fund was cash limited and considered that the council were reasonably entitled to take this into account. We did not find that the council had failed to take account of the DWP guidance and their DHP policies when reviewing Mr C's claim. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure the relevant housing and revenues and benefits teams liaise with each other in cases where a claim for discretionary housing payment is being considered and which may involve the loss of a tenancy and possible homelessness.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to address within a reasonable timescale her concerns about anti-social behaviour. Mrs C also felt that the council had not responded adequately to her complaints.

The council stated that they felt they had responded reasonably and in line with their procedures both in terms of the anti-social behaviour complaints and in terms of their complaints handling.

Our view was that the council had been at fault in not appropriately acting upon Mrs C's initial anti-social behaviour complaint. We also found that the council had not recognised an email from Mrs C as a complaint or dealt with it in accordance with their procedures. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to appropriately log her anti-social behaviour complaint and for their delay in commencing an investigation of her concerns; and
• apologise to Mrs C for their failure to deal with her correspondence as a complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained about the time it took the council to deal with a problem she was having with pigeons on her balcony. Although we found the council's communication could have been better, we were satisfied that the works, which had been assessed as non-emergency, were carried out within a reasonable timescale. We therefore did no uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also told us there was a delay in progressing a claim she made for compensation. This delay had already been acknowledged by the council. Ms C also said that the council did not respond reasonably to points of complaint she raised by email. We found that there were shortcomings in the council's response and that some issues were not addressed either at all or as fully as possible. We therefore upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the unnecessary delay in progressing Ms C's claim for compensation.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to properly handle numerous complaints about noise from her downstairs neighbour that she had been experiencing for two years.

We found that the council's initial response to Miss C's noise complaints was appropriate and in line with their Antisocial Behaviour Policy.

However, aside from a period of time when the council were trying to work with the neighbour to reach a long-term resolution, we were concerned that the council had allowed the behaviour to continue for so long without further action being considered or taken under the Antisocial Behaviour Policy. We also had concerns that an internal review had concluded that the behaviour had improved, even though Miss C continued to report noise complaints. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings identified in this investigation; and
• review Miss C's noise complaints in line with the Antisocial Behaviour Policy and fully consider all options available to properly address her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about a statutory notice on his property. He complained that the council had failed to act on his assertion that his property had been damaged by the contractors carrying out the statutory notice work and that a breakdown of costs had not been provided to him either during the works or after completion. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to notify him properly of the statutory notice, and failed to manage the projects in line with their obligations.

During our investigations we examined the information provided by the council and Mr C. We found that Mr C had not raised the issue of his property being damaged until several years after the works had been completed and therefore the council had no obligation to act. We found that the council had provided Mr C with a breakdown of estimated costs during the works being carried out, and a breakdown of final costs when they were completed. We also found that Mr C had been notified of the statutory notices in line with council policy, and that the projects were managed in line with all council obligations. Therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of concerns relating to the planning situation at an adjoining farm. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to ensure all planning conditions attached to planning consent for the erection of four houses were enforceable. She also complained that the council failed to follow planning procedures in relation to a planning application for a replacement shed on land owned by the farm and that incorrect information was contained in the officer's report for another planning application for the same site.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, whose advice that the planning condition did not meet the standards of precision and reasonableness we accepted. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and recommended that a full and unreserved apology be issued to Mrs C.

We also found that while the officer's report lacked detail, there was no evidence that the council had failed to follow planning procedure, and we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint. The council also accepted that the officer's report had contained some drafting errors, and while we were mindful that a site visit had been carried out during which the planning officer would have seen the actual position when assessing the planning application, we found that the errors should have been corrected prior to determination of the planning application. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our findings to staff responsible for drafting or approving planning conditions, as a learning tool; and
• demonstrate how quality checking is being used to improve the accuracy and quality of planning reports (both in relation to the accuracy of calculations, and to ensuring reports are sufficiently detailed to explain and support the planning decision).

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and had not dealt reasonably with a request for rent remission (that she should not pay full rent during some of the time the repairs were taking place).

While we noted that a number of repairs were required and that there were delays, we did not find evidence that this was as a result of problems which the council could have predicted.

Regarding the request for a rent remission, we noted that Miss C had taken possession of the property following a mutual exchange, whereby she had agreed to take the property in the condition it was in. The council's view was that the property was habitable throughout the repairs, and as such full rent payment was due and no remission would be granted. We did not find this to be unreasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to act on concerns she raised about possible structural damage to her home caused by works carried out on the adjoining property. She was of the view that the building control team failed in their duty to protect her and her family from dangerous works, failed to respond appropriately to her phone calls and failed to communicate with her appropriately. She was also unhappy with their response to her subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had inspected the work and noted that the works which caused damage were to a party wall which was not included in the building warrant. The council obtained agreement from the neighbour to reinstate the wall and, having inspected the wall, they were satisfied that it was safe. The damage caused to Miss C's property by the works carried out by her neighbour were, essentially, private legal matters between her and her neighbour. Having reviewed the council's actions, we were satisfied that they responded to Miss C's concerns appropriately. We were also satisfied that they had provided a reasonable response to her subsequent complaint. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them.

Over a number of years, Mr C was involved with a website forum which focused on local politics. Material was posted on the forum which in the view of the council was offensive. The council wrote to Mr C advising that they were taking action under their policy and that they would no longer respond to communication from Mr C, whether written or verbal.

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's actions, including that they should have issued a warning and that the council's restrictions had no connection with the allegations made against him.

Having reviewed the council's Unacceptable Actions Policy, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council should have issued a formal warning to Mr C in relation to the conduct they were concerned about. We also found that the council should have provided Mr C with a more robust explanation of why they considered the restrictions on communication to have been necessary.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the procedural failings this investigation has identified; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.