Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about a property he rented from the council and about their handling of his complaint.

Two days after signing his tenancy agreement, Mr C reported that the heating was not working. He also raised a number of additional concerns about the property including problems with a fuse box, windows and insulation, and about how the council conducted repairs.

Based on the evidence available, we found the council acted in accordance with their allocation policy when letting the property. The council provided evidence that the heating system had been in working order after installation. The council also provided a property survey report evidencing that they conducted a reasonable assessment of the property. We also found that the council acted in accordance with their repairs policy in relation to the property. The council's records indicated that repairs were attended to within the council's time-frames. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaints within a reasonable time-frame. In particular, we considered the council should have recognised his complaint at an early stage and provided a response accordingly. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in the report regarding complaints handling; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a meeting he had with them to discuss proposed design changes to a public space. He told us that he felt the staff present had communicated in a manner which was hostile and patronising and that he had left with the impression that the purpose of the meeting was to bully and intimidate him rather than discuss the merits of the proposal in question.

Mr C had originally advised that he held a recording of the meeting in question, taken with the permission of everyone present. However, the recording had become corrupted and Mr C was unable to provide this.

On investigation, we found that the council had not taken minutes or made any other written record of the meeting. We did not consider this unreasonable in the circumstances but this did mean we were unable to reach a definitive conclusion, basing our decision on the limited records that were available.

On balance, we concluded that while it was clear that Mr C had left the meeting extremely dissatisfied with the manner council officers communicated with him, the evidence available did not support this complaint. What written communication was available was considered and professional in tone and appeared to suggest that the council were willing to discuss the issues in question openly and thoroughly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the length of time it took the council to inspect and make safe a damaged wall in the cul-de-sac where she lived, as she was concerned about the health and safety of children who play there. She was also unhappy with the council's communication concerning the planned works on the wall, and their handling of the complaint that she raised with them.

We found that the timescale for inspection of the wall was at the discretion of the council. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

However, we found a number of failings by the council with regard to their communication and the handling of Mrs C's complaint. We found that there was a delay in the council responding to Mrs C's complaint. The council did not inform Mrs C that they had undertaken an inspection visit or that their decision that the damaged wall did not constitute a hazard for the public. We found that they did not provide regular updates and that when Mrs C did receive information, it was often confusing and contradictory. We therefore upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

The council apologised for some of these failings and have since repaired the wall.

Mrs C also raised concerns about a faulty fence and we made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified in this case;
• reflect on the failings identified during this investigation and advise this office of the steps they will take to improve their communication in similar circumstances in the future; and
• advise this office when the planned works on the fence have been completed

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to properly notify two neighbouring properties of a planning application near to her home. She was also concerned that the council granted planning consent despite being informed that land which the applicant had suggested was under their ownership was not. She reported a number of breaches of a planning condition restricting noise on the site outwith the working day and was unhappy that the council did not take additional action against the developer for breaching this condition. Mrs C was also unhappy with the way the council dealt with her subsequent complaint.

The council had previously acknowledged that, as a result of a computer error, they failed to notify two neighbouring properties. They explained the steps they had taken to fix their computer record and apologised to the owners of the properties concerned.

We were satisfied that the council had failed to notify these neighbours as they were required to, and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. As they had already taken steps to correct their system records and had apologised to the property owners, we made no recommendations on this point.

As the council had obtained appropriate certification from the developer in respect of land ownership, as they had reminded the developer of their responsibilities to comply with the condition relating to noise outwith working hours and as they dealt with the complaint in line with their complaints procedure, we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's actions in relation to planning issues for a development next to his home. He said that they had unreasonably considered the addition of an extra upper storey window in one of the houses in the development to be a non-material variation (a change which does not require planning permission). We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had been entitled to consider that the additional window was a non-material variation and did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had found that a condition in the planning permission relating to the boundary at the site had been met, despite the fact that the fence built by the developer was constructed two metres short of the boundary and left several trees on Mr C's side of the fence. We found that it had been reasonable for the council to decide that the developer had complied with the terms of the planning permission in relation to the boundary. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to ensure that adequate on-site parking provision for workers was provided during the construction period. We found that the council's actions in relation to this matter, including their decision to take advice from their roads service, had been reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that works did not take place at the development site outwith the construction periods referred to in one of the conditions of the planning permission. We found evidence that the council had adequately monitored the situation, including issuing reminders prior to bank holidays. We considered that the council had taken reasonable action to ensure that works did not take place outwith the construction period and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) following the council's decision to deem Mr A intentionally homeless. We found the council had followed and applied the relevant legislation appropriately. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his former wife (Mrs B) and his son (Mr B) about a letter Mr B's head teacher sent to Mrs B, in relation to alleged disciplinary issues in the school. Mr C also complained about the council's investigation of and response to Mrs B's complaint.

We found that the head teacher's letter included very emotive language, rather than factual information about specific incidents. Such factual information could have helped to engage Mrs B with the school's concerns in light of the facts.

We also identified a number of failings with the council's investigation and response to Mrs B, and noted that the council failed to send us all relevant information in response to our enquiry. The council's investigating officer made a recommendation following their investigation but the council was not able to provide information on the investigating officer's meetings or findings, therefore we concluded that notes were either not taken or not retained. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C, Mrs B and Mr B for the inappropriate language included in the head teacher's letter;
• send a copy to this office of the policy they developed in response to the investigating officer's recommendation;
• ensure that investigating officers make and keep records of interviews and advice received as part of the complaint file; and
• remind investigating officers of the need to comply with the complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr and Mr C said the council had not taken the risk of flooding into account in dealing with a retrospective planning application. The application had been submitted by a neighbour for change of land use on the site of a business.

Mrs and Mrs C said the site had been steadily developed over a number of years without consent. They said that changes had been made to the land which increased the risk of flooding.

We found the council had reasonably explained their decision. Their view was that there was no change in development terms that they considered would affect or increase the risk of flooding.

We took into account that Mr and Mrs C could have raised objections to the application but did not do so. However, whilst planning officers reached their view based on a number of valid considerations, including advice previously given in respect of flooding, their report of handling (a document which explored the merits of the development in accordance with various planning policies) did not contain the kind of detail we would have expected.

We found the council had not responded reasonably to Mr and Mrs C's complaint about buildings erected without consent. Although the council had carried out a site visit, they omitted to tell Mr and Mrs C what they found, and that they considered the buildings permitted the development. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to fully address Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's handling of asset transfers to two local charities, as she did not believe that the council had completed appropriate Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)s as required under the Equality Act 2010. She believed that they had only completed one EIA, which failed to consider all of the protected groups defined in the Act.

On investigation, we found that the council had completed EIAs for both asset transfers. On the first of these assessments, one area of the form used had only been partially completed, giving the initial impression that only some protected groups had been assessed. However, after reviewing their records in full, we were satisfied, on balance, that the council had considered all of the areas required. As such, we shared this minor error with the council but did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C said the council did not made reasonable arrangements to keep him informed about the education of his children. Mr C was living apart from his children in another part of the UK. We found the council strategy was supportive of parental involvement. We found the school had made reasonable arrangements to keep Mr C informed, and arranged consultations around his needs when he could not attend the usual parent consultations held twice a year.

We found evidence that the arrangements did not always work perfectly. For example, there was a delay in getting the school newsletter to Mr C when an email bounced back. There was also disagreement over three emails Mr C said were sent, which the council said the school did not receive. Whilst there were some problems with communication, we found no evidence this was the result of fault or failure on the part of the school.

We found the council's response contained an inaccuracy as it referred to a request for a meeting which had not been made. We noted that any inaccuracy in responding to complaints was unhelpful and that responses to complaints should always reflect the facts according to the evidence. However, we were satisfied that Mr C received a prompt and reasonable response to his complaint.