Local Government

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of statutory notices issued in relation to his property.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the notification process in relation to the issue of the statutory notices or that they had failed to follow procedures in relation to the decision to administer the works on behalf of owners.

While we were concerned that the council's project file was incomplete in relation to the repairs carried out, the project had been reviewed by an independent adviser appointed by the council, who was satisfied that the works carried out were within the scope of the statutory notices and the final bill issued to owners was correct. We were also aware that action had been taken by the council to improve record-keeping in relation to project files for works undertaken to comply with statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably invoiced him for the cost of work associated with two emergency statutory notices carried out four years previously. These had been issued to make safe masonry on a building where Mr C owns a flat. Mr C was concerned that the council could only provide evidence of the amount they paid the contractor for the work, rather than an itemised bill. He was also concerned about the length of time it took the council to invoice him for the share of the costs.

The council said that invoices from the contractor could not be retrieved as the company was no longer trading. They said that the invoices were submitted by the contractor electronically through the council's internal payment system, therefore there was no paper copy on record other than printouts confirming the payments the council had made to the contractor. The council said that there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory, and so they felt the invoices were accurate and recoverable from the owners.

We were critical that the council was unable to provide records to show that the site had been inspected to verify completion of the work before payment was authorised to the contractor. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the work carried out had not been satisfactory. We were satisfied that the council had implemented guidance on the emergency statutory notice process. We also found that the council had delayed issuing the invoices due to an investigation into their former property conservation section and that the council was entitled to pursue the outstanding costs after four years. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings in their record-keeping.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a planning application to develop residential accommodation at a site next to the home of her daughter (Miss A). Mrs C complained that the council had not taken appropriate action when she highlighted issues with the accuracy of the applicant's submission. She also complained that the council had not allowed sufficient time before a committee meeting for her to submit additional information about the impact of the new development on daylight at Miss A's home.

We took independent planning advice. We found that when Mrs C raised concerns about the accuracy of the application, the council did not acknowledge or act on these quickly. The council had recognised this during their own consideration of the complaint and taken remedial action. The advice we received highlighted a failure to re-notify neighbours when the applicant submitted further information to the council. Had the council taken this action, it would have allowed Mrs C further time to submit information relating to the daylight impact of the development.

We also found the council had told Mrs C that a short turnaround time had been given due to concerns about the applicant appealing against non-determination of the planning application (the planning applicant has a right to appeal the non-determination of their application if the council has not reached a decision to grant or refuse planning consent within a specific statutory timescale). The advice we received was that the timescale for an appeal had already passed and consequently this was not a relevant factor in the case. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mrs C with an apology for the incorrect information she was given about a potential appeal for non-determination of the planning application.

Summary

Ms C and Mr C complained about the level of consultation carried out by the council in relation to a site planning brief issued by them proposing that an area of open space on a former school site be released, in part, for housing.

We reviewed the steps taken by the council when undertaking the consultation and also considered the procedural and legal duties imposed on the council in respect of consultation. Having done so, we were of the view that the consultation carried out was proportionate and in line with the council's responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C said that her daughter (Miss A) was unable to go on an outdoor education trip organised through her school as she had her period that day and there were no arrangements for toilet stops during the outing. After raising a complaint about this with the council, Miss C agreed to look over draft documentation on the council's policy on offsite trips as part of a review group and provide feedback. This process subsequently broke down and Miss C complained again to the council and was given assurances that the changes that she felt should be made would be put in place. When Miss A's school next issued correspondence on an outdoor education trip, Miss C said it was clear that the agreed changes had not been made.

Miss C complained that the council acted unreasonably by failing to make the amendments to the documentation on the council's policy which she was led to believe would be put in place. The council acknowledged that this was the case and that the timescale for finalising and implementing the revised documents was unreasonable. This was supported by documentary evidence and we therefore upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Miss C also complained that the council's handling of her complaint was unreasonable. Miss C raised several issues, including that the timescale for dealing with her complaint was excessively lengthy. We found that there were unreasonable delays by the council in acknowledging and responding to Miss C's complaint. We also found that the council appeared to be operating two different complaints procedures, one of which (Complaints Procedure 1) contained an excessive number of stages and out-of-date information on rights of appeal, and did not comply with the local authority's model complaints handling procedure. We therefore also upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that possible toilet stops are included in every outdoor activity plan;
• provide Miss C and her daughter with a written apology for the failings identified;
• ensure that Complaints Procedure 1 complies with the model customer facing complaints procedure on the Complaints Standards Authority Valuing Complaints website;
• feed back our decision on Miss C's complaint to the staff involved; and
• provide Miss C with a written apology for the additional failings referred to in our decision.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had twice reported faulty street lights to the council and that they had failed to repair the lights, as they were required to do. He also complained about the way in which the council dealt with his complaint.

The council had acknowledged failings in their repairs process and subsequent communication and advised Mr C that these lights would be repaired.

We found that the council's records of Mr C's initial reports and their subsequent actions were poor. We were unclear as to what action had been taken by the council as the evidence was limited. We also noted that the council had failed to address Mr C's subsequent complaints to them, to speak to Mr C to discuss his concerns, and to respond to his correspondence in line with their complaints process. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of Mr C's request for repairs to the street lamps in order to establish why they do not appear to have reacted to his multiple reports of street lighting faults within the required timescale and also review their record-keeping to ensure that accurate records are retained of reports of faults and repairs carried out; and
• reflect on their handling of this complaint in order to identify why responses were not provided within the appropriate time frames, why Mr C was not contacted to clarify his complaint and why the points he raised were not addressed in either their stage one or stage two responses.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to fully reflect his concerns about a neighbouring planning application when they made a report to committee, in particular with regard to noise and loss of sunlight.

The council acknowledged that they had failed to fully reflect Mr C's concerns. They advised Mr C that the measurement of sunlight loss used for the application was appropriate but accepted that they should have communicated more clearly in their report about the loss of daylight. They also acknowledged that they did not properly reflect Mr C's concerns about the potential impact of noise.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser found that while the council had failed to fully reflect the representations made by Mr C, these would have been available in full to committee members. They also found that the daylight test was in line with the council's guidance. As the council did not fully reflect Mr C's concerns about possible noise, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind planning officers of the importance of accurately reflecting public representations on material planning matters in the report of handling.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us regarding a planning application at a neighbouring site. In particular, she was concerned that the council had failed to re-notify neighbours following the submission of further information from the applicant. Mrs C also complained that the development management sub-committee had not been provided with a reasonable standard of information about ground levels.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. They noted that when responding to Mrs C's complaints, the council had accepted that neighbours should have been notified of the additional information submitted and been given the opportunity to make further representations. The council also accepted that members of the development management sub-committee should have been made aware of the proposed site levels. We were advised that while reasonable action had been taken by the council to address these findings, further action should be taken by the council. We therefore made five recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the need for the planning service to accept direct responsibility for securing an acceptable solution in this case and report to us on any action taken;
• ensure that all options, including a specific proposal, are identified and considered and report back to us on the progress of a resolution;
• consider the need to ensure that where they are both planning authority and developer, it is essential to ensure that the standards of the planning service are met, and report back to us on any action taken;
• provide an update on the options developed for landscaping; and
• provide a copy of the practice note on site levels which has been prepared by the service delivery team.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to take all appropriate steps in relation to her reports of anti-social behaviour. During our investigation we noted that the council's anti-social behaviour policy gives staff discretion to decide how to investigate complaints and to decide what action, if any, should be taken. By law, we are not able to question these decisions unless there is evidence of administrative error in reaching the decision. The council's policy indicated that mediation and noise monitoring should be considered and we saw evidence that this had happened. We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps in line with their policy, and so we did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council had not properly considered and assessed her claim for damage caused to her property. During our investigation we found that the insurers had been supplied with sufficient information by the council. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C had previously paved his entire front garden to make a driveway and was given permission from the council to double the length of his dropped kerb to access this area. Mr C said he had difficulty accessing his drive and wished to further extend the dropped kerb. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to appropriately assess his application to extend the drop kerb outside his home.

In considering Mr C's complaint, our role was to determine whether the council followed their normal process when dealing with Mr C's application. It was not our role to assess the site in question and determine whether or not Mr C's application should have been approved – that was the council's discretionary decision.

We saw no evidence that there was any visit made by a council officer to the site in question prior to giving his initial decision to refuse Mr C's application, although the council said a visit was made. When Mr C questioned the officer's decision it appeared that the council assessed Mr C's application in accordance with their normal process, with the council officer's manager assessing the site in question and setting out his professional opinion on why the application had been refused. On balance, we did not consider that the council unreasonably failed to appropriately assess Mr C's application.

However, the evidence showed that the council failed to keep adequate records on the case and deal with Mr C's concerns about their handling of his application and the actions of council staff appropriately. We made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the failings identified in our decision to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that in future cases of this type, records of site visits and phone conversations regarding applications are kept and complainants are appropriately directed to their complaints procedure; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.