Local Government

Summary

Mr C began to experience an increase in cooking smells from the cafe above which he lived. Mr C contacted the council's Land and Environment Services (LES) department to report a nuisance. Two months later, he wrote to the council's Development and Regeneration Services (DRS) department to report that the cafe had breached the planning permission granted. Mr C was not satisfied with the way that either department responded to his correspondence, and he submitted a complaint to the council. He was also not satisfied with the way his complaints to LES and DRS had been handled by the council.

We noted that throughout Mr C's correspondence with LES, he had raised concerns that the cafe did not have an extraction system and was not meeting ventilation requirements. In response to our enquiries regarding ventilation, the council informed us that in a previous planning consultation response, LES had recommended to DRS that a high-level flue was required for the cafe. The council advised that this was not considered by DRS at the initial stage of the planning process, or by the Local Review Committee at the review stage of the planning process.

We took independent planning advice. The adviser noted that the council was not obliged to attach a planning condition regarding a flue as the Local Review Committee had discretion in deciding which planning conditions, if any, to attach to any planning permission.

Overall we found that the council had taken appropriate steps to investigate the first reported nuisance. However, we noted that the council's records were not clear regarding the reason for a delay in the investigation. The council acknowledged that they had not updated Mr C appropriately about the progress of the investigation. We also found that Mr C's report of nuisance had not been acknowledged and that he had not been advised of the outcome of the nuisance investigation in writing. We also found that the council had not acted appropriately in response to a nuisance subsequently reported by Mr C. For these reasons, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

In relation to Mr C's concerns about the service he received from DRS, we noted that the department had also failed to acknowledge Mr C's initial letter. Although this was a requirement of DRS's service standards, we were satisfied that an appropriate planning enforcement investigation was carried out in response to Mr C's letter, and on balance we were satisfied that the investigation was broadly carried out in accordance with the council's service standards. Although Mr C felt that the cafe had breached the planning permission granted, we were advised that the decision on whether there is a requirement for enforcement action rests with the council as the planning authority. Although we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we made a recommendation in relation to it.

We also considered how the council had handled Mr C's complaints. We found that on one occasion LES had failed to respond to Mr C's query about to whom he should make a complaint, and we found an instance where DRS did not consider one of Mr C's complaints under the council's complaints procedure. Furthermore, we noted a number of occasions where Mr C's complaints were not acknowledged in accordance with the procedure, and we found that the council's final response contained inaccuracies. Although we found instances of good practice in complaints handling, on balance we upheld Mr C's complaint in this regard.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the importance of keeping clear and accurate records to officers in the Environmental Health Department;
• feed back the adviser's comments on this case to planning officers in the Planning Department;
• take steps to ensure that the Environmental Health Department has a system in place to ensure that nuisance complaints are acknowledged and the outcomes of investigations are communicated in writing;
• undertake further monitoring of the reported odour nuisance, and consider whether any further action would be appropriate;
• remind staff in the Planning Department of the importance of ensuring that planning enforcement complaints are acknowledged in accordance with the service standards, and that clear and informative outcome notification letters are sent to complainants;
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified during this investigation;
• take steps to ensure that complaints are acknowledged in writing within three working days of receipt; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to staff involved in handling Mr C's complaints to ensure that complaints are recognised and handled in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about the actions of their social work department. She was dissatisfied with their response and a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) was held. Ms C complained to us about the processes involved leading up to and including the CRC. In particular, she said that the terms of her complaint were not agreed with her in advance, further issues that were raised in advance of the CRC were not considered and her complaints about her dissatisfaction were not properly considered.

We made further enquiries of the council and found that contrary to their procedure, Ms C's complaints had not been agreed with her in advance. While the further information she provided was considered, it had not been acknowledged and she had not been told that it would be heard by the CRC. This led to Ms C feeling that her case had not been properly heard. We, therefore, upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should apologise to Ms C for failing to agree the terms of her complaint in advance.
• The council should apologise to Ms C for failing to acknowledge the issues she raised prior to the CRC.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff who act as investigating officers should agree the terms of complaints in advance.

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 wrongly invoiced him for repairs to his TV aerial. He disputed the repair and complained to the council. They explained that sub-contractors had found that the problem Mr C had reported was with his TV equipment rather than the council communal aerial, and he was therefore liable for the charge. The council produced evidence in support of their position, indicating that the work had been carried out. We found no evidence in support of Mr C's claim and accordingly did not uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We did not find any failings in the council's complaints handling. They had responded appropriately and provided the relevant information. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his son (Mr A) regarding the aborted sale of a council owned property. Mr C told us that the council had initially accepted his son's bid for a property they were looking to sell but, due to delays on the part of the council which led to the removal of the mortgage offer, the sale could not go ahead. Mr C was also unhappy that the council had insisted that Mr A pay for a refreshment of the home report, which was required by his lender.

On investigation, we found that there was a period of around four months between the council's acceptance of Mr A's bid and agreement on the terms of sale. The first month of this was due to a change of solicitor required by Mr A's lender. The remaining time was spent in negotiation regarding the terms of the sale, as Mr A requested a change of the boundaries, and had concerns regarding the level of environmental liability that would be placed on him under the standards terms. Throughout these discussions, the council responded to each contact within two weeks, which we considered reasonable given the level of consideration required.

With regards to the home report refreshment, this was only required on the insistence of Mr A's lender. Given this, we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to request that Mr A met the cost. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

The council advertised some land for sale and received a number of offers. Mr C, a chartered surveyor, said that his client (Mr A) made an offer for the land, which was subsequently found to be the highest offer. However, in a report to the council executive, a member of council staff recommended the sale of the land to another bidder who had offered a lesser amount. Mr C complained that the council executive was not given information on the amount of Mr A’s offer, and considered this could have resulted in a different decision being made on the sale.

We acknowledged that the report provided to the council executive was brief and lacking in detailed explanation as to why the recommended offer was considered best value - it simply stated that this was determined following analysis of ‘a number of offers’. We considered that the report could have included a more detailed explanation of why this was the case, particularly as the offer was not the highest. However, having reviewed all relevant information, we were satisfied that the council acted in accordance with their longstanding practice in only providing details of the offer considered to be best value in their report. We noted that the report indicated that a number of offers had been received, and it was open to council executive members to request further information if they wished, as one council member subsequently did. We also considered that the council based their decision about which offer/s to include in the report on a detailed consideration of all the information available, including seeking advice from relevant sources where required.

We concluded that staff did not unreasonably fail to give the council executive relevant information about the offers received for the land and we did not uphold the complaint. However, we fed back our comments about the desirability of a more detailed explanation of ‘best value’ for the council’s consideration.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Miss A). He said that the council had unreasonably failed to comply with its policy on restraint and physical intervention. He also complained that the council were unreasonably using a restraint and physical intervention policy which is not specific for children. Miss A was unhappy with how staff at her daughter's school had responded to an incident involving her daughter.

In investigating the complaint, we received information from Miss A and the council about the incident, including statements from the staff involved and Miss A's daughter. The council also provided copies of their policies relating to behaviour management and physical restraint in schools.

We found that the council's policies mentioned three stages of good practice to deal with a critical incident at a school and the potential need for physical intervention. We found that the act of restraint used towards Miss A's daughter was appropriate given the council's policy. However, there is a clear emphasis in the policy on avoiding or de-escalating a potential incident in the first place and we found that the council did not act reasonably in line with their policy to stop the incident taking place.

We also found that there was a failure to document if Miss A's daughter was injured following the restraint, as is required by the council's policy. The council acknowledged that the preventative measures could have been better used and said that they have provided further training for the staff involved. We have asked for evidence of this training. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The council agreed that the restraint and physical intervention policy is generic but stated it was applicable in any situation where challenging behaviour occurs. We found that, whilst the policy could be more child-specific, it does refer to risk-benefit assessments and care/education plans which will be specific to an individual's situation. We felt this would allow the impact of the policy to be child-specific when implemented and we therefore did not consider the existing policy to be unreasonable. We did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss A for failing to reasonably comply with procedures, and for the distress caused to both Miss A and her daughter. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at 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 and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son. They said that the council failed to provide him with an appropriate child’s plan and that they failed to provide him with an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) application form.

Mr and Mrs C said the child’s plan contained inaccurate and out of date information. However, Mr and Mrs C could not provide any evidence to support this complaint, such as why the plan given to their son was inappropriate or why the plan was inaccurate. We found that Mr and Mrs C had an opportunity to provide comments to their son's school about the child’s plan, and that they could inform the school of any factual inaccuracies they believed there to be. In relation to the EMA form, we found that their son's name was on a distribution list for EMA letters, and that the scheme was widely publicised in the school. We did not uphold Mr and Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s response to his complaint regarding a planning application in his neighbourhood. Mr C said he could not access a copy of the application to comment on it. He felt the council did not reasonably respond to his complaint about this, and were condescending and dismissive of his concerns.

We found that the council carried out a detailed investigation of Mr C’s complaint. Their response dealt with the key issues Mr C raised in his complaint, and it was detailed and factually accurate about the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The response explained what the council did in relation to the application, acknowledged there had been a problem for Mr C accessing the application at the council’s office, and outlined how the failings the council identified would be addressed. We did not find evidence that the council’s response was condescending or dismissive of Mr C's concerns, although we accepted this was Mr C’s perception of the response. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures before raising court proceedings to recover rent arrears. She also complained that they failed to follow policies and procedures in relation to recovery of council tax arrears. Miss C has a history of depression, stress and anxiety and has had spells when she has been well enough to work, as well as periods when she has been in receipt of benefits due to ill health. She pointed out that she had always notified the council of any change in her employment.

We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures in relation to recovery of rent arrears. It appeared that the council had correctly identified her as vulnerable and had taken steps to ensure that her arrears did not get out of hand, in line with their protocol. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to the council tax arrears, the council had instructed sheriff officers to recover council tax arrears dating back almost 20 years. Miss C accepted that she owed council tax, but she questioned how the council could pursue her for debts dating so far back. The council advised that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had not notified them when her direct deductions (deductions taken from benefit payments in order to repay debts) ceased, and that the debt had remained on hold until the council's debt recovery team recently carried out a review of all historical debts. The council accepted that there had been administrative failings in dealing with her historical debts. We considered that poor communication had led to an opportunity to share information being missed. Had there been better communication between departments, it may have been picked up sooner that she was no longer in receipt of benefits and was therefore not having direct deductions taken by DWP.

We found that although the officers involved in collecting Miss C's rent were aware of her depression and appeared to recognise her vulnerability, those pursuing her for council tax arrears failed to take her vulnerability into account. In terms of their policy, the council had discretion in relation to recovering the arrears, taking into account her vulnerability. We noted that they had certain write-off powers, but they satisfied us that these were not applicable in these particular circumstances. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for failing to note that she was no longer having direct deductions taken by DWP, leading to a build-up of council tax arrears dating back many years. Further apologise to Miss C for failing to identify her as vulnerable when recovering council tax arrears from her. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Review the way they treated Miss C in relation to their policies and her vulnerability, with a view to writing off some or all of the council tax arrears. They must explain their reasons for their decision in clear, jargon-free language.

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

• Communication between relevant departments, particularly with regard to vulnerable tenants, should be improved.

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 about the council regarding the allocation of a previous tenancy. She told us that she had repeatedly made clear to the council that she could only accept offers in one specific area very close to her family due to threats of violence from friends of her ex-partner. She said that the council insisted that she expand her areas of preference and this resulted in an offer in an area where she felt unsafe but that she felt forced to accept, as the council had told her she would not receive another offer if she refused. However, she had to leave this property after ongoing disputes with one of her neighbours, a friend of her ex-partner.

On investigation, we did not find any evidence that the council had applied pressure to Miss C to extend her area preferences. It was clear from the documentation, which Miss C had signed to confirm her agreement, that the property offered was in an area she had initially requested, before adding further areas. The council was also able to evidence that they had given due consideration to the suitability of the offer before approaching Miss C and do not appear to have held any information to suggest it was unsuitable. Finally, there was evidence that the council had provided clear information on Miss C's right of appeal, which confirmed that she would receive a further offer if her appeal was successful or be able to accept the original offer if it was not. However, Miss C chose not to appeal the offer. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.