Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to refer a decision on a planning application to the planning committee, and that the council's handling of his complaint about this matter had been unreasonable because it was responded to by the officers who had handled the application.

Mr C believed the application should have been referred to the planning committee because a previous application, which he considered was similar, had been determined by the planning committee. The council advised that the previous application had been for the removal of a planning condition for a group of buildings, while the application Mr C complained about had been for a change of use of some of that group of buildings, and that they considered that the applications were significantly different. We took independent advice from a planning adviser who reached the same conclusion, and also noted that documents submitted with the later application specifically pointed out that there were differences between it and the earlier application. We accepted the adviser's view and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had appropriately investigated the complaint and there had been no undue influence by the staff who had originally handled the applications. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a housing officer unreasonably approached him in the street and accused him of causing nuisance. Mr C said he had previously told the council about a health issue, and had asked them to notify him in advance of any visit.

We found that Mr C had told the council about a disability, and had asked them to alert him in advance of any visit. The council said the officer who approached Mr C did not know who he was when they approached Mr C. We could not prove by means of the evidence available exactly what the officer who approached Mr C knew about the situation. We found that the officer was entitled to ask the kind of questions they put to Mr C. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted the officer could have been better informed and prepared in advance of the visit.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to follow the correct procedures when investigating the matter. We found that the council had in the main done what would be expected in similar situations. However, the council's tenancy management procedures were not followed, as no case closure letter had been sent. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the existing tenancy management procedures and/or remind staff of their obligations under those procedures.

Summary

Miss C was unhappy with the condition of a property she moved into. She said the property was not clean and smelled of urine, with stains on the floors and doorways. Miss C said that it took the council too long to carry out repairs that were needed, and that the council did not respond to all the issues she raised in her complaint.

The council's letting standard is that properties should be clean and free of offensive smells. It was clear from the void inspection report that the property was in a poor state of cleanliness. However, we found evidence that some cleaning was carried out, as the property was being cleaned when Miss C viewed it. We took into account that Miss C viewed the property and that neither Miss C, nor the council officer present at the viewing, noticed or reported any offensive smell at this time. Overall the evidence showed that the council had taken the kind of steps we would expect to check that the property was in a lettable condition by arranging for it to be cleaned and repaired. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

We found that when Miss C reported emergency repairs they were dealt with in a timely way, according to the council's policy. We found a flea infestation was treated within a reasonable timescale. Although the council's policy was not prescriptive in terms of how long repairs categorised as non-emergency should take, we found that the time taken to complete joinery works to replace sections of stained flooring was not excessive. The council acknowledged the disruption to Miss C in responding to her complaint.

We found it took too long for the council to repair a path and steps and to replace a handrail. We asked the council to check whether this repair should have been carried out according to the right to repair legislation. There was also evidence that other small non-emergency repairs logged following an inspection visit were not progressed with reasonable efficiency and that relatively straightforward issues were not resolved within a reasonable timescale.

Miss C's letter of complaint raised a number of different issues linked to her move to the property. The council's response addressed the main issues raised within the relevant timescale. Miss C's complaint was partially upheld by the council. They said they were sorry that the condition of the property was not as Miss C had expected, and they acknowledged that her move had been more stressful than anticipated. The council apologised for the inconvenience and upheaval caused.

Overall we considered the content of the council's response to Miss C's complaint to be reasonable. However we noted that the council's response did not address all of the issues Miss C raised. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the evidence in respect of the repair to the stairs, path and handrail and consider whether this repair should have been dealt with under the right to repair rules. The council should assess, if appropriate, whether any payment is due to Miss C under the right to repair rules. The council should also write to Miss C to confirm the outcome of the review, and send a copy to us.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her concerns about alleged bullying at her son's school. Mrs C raised concerns that the council failed to formally record her concerns about bullying, failed to investigate these concerns, and failed to handle her complaint appropriately.

The council advised that the school did not consider the behaviour complained about to be bullying, so it had not been recorded as such. They considered that this had been appropriately investigated. The council acknowledged there had been some confusion in the complaints process surrounding the appropriate procedure.

After reviewing the council's complaints file and reviewing the relevant policies, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that there had been failures in recording the alleged bullying. In particular, the council's guidance suggested alleged incidents of bullying needed to be recorded on the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form as such, not only cases where bullying was found to occur.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns about investigating bullying, we found that there was evidence that the school had investigated the incidents and considered that they did not amount to bullying. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Regarding the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we noted there were a number of issues, including confusion regarding the appropriate policy and delays in responding. Therefore, we considered the council had not adhered to their complaints handling policy, and we found the handling of the complaint to have been unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings in complaints handling identified in this investigation;
• feed back to relevant staff the failings identified in the handling of Mrs C's complaint;
• apologise for the failings in recording alleged bullying incidents identified in this investigation;
• take steps to ensure the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form is appropriately completed; and
• provide us with evidence that the council's policy guidance has been reflected in the school's anti-bullying policy.

Summary

Mr C had a number of concerns about the council's administration in relation to council tax. Mr C lets a property within the council's area, and when the tenants of his property changed, he provided information to the council about the change by email. The council sent Mr C a paper form by post and requested that he complete this so that the change in liability could be processed. Mr C complained that the council asked him to provide information in this form that he had already provided by email. We found that the information Mr C had provided by email would not have been sufficient for the council to correctly establish liability for the new tenants. We were therefore not critical that the council asked Mr C to complete a change in tenant notification form.

Mr C complained that the council had requested more information than was necessary to establish that a tenancy existed, and consequently that a tenant was the liable person. We found that the council had a policy to request a copy of the tenancy agreement as well as a copy of a special notice (an AT5 notice) that would make a tenancy a short assured tenancy. The council advised us that, although an AT5 was not required in terms of council tax legislation, they requested this document for a number of other reasons, including to promote best practice in the private rented sector. We were critical that the council had held Mr C to be the liable person for council tax when they held enough information to determine that this was not the case. We were also critical that the council's complaint response to Mr C was inconsistent with the council's guidance on tenancies and AT5 notices. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had asked him to provide an AT5 notice to tenants retrospectively. We found that the council had acknowledged that a customer service representative had given improper advice regarding when an AT5 could be provided and had apologised to Mr C for this. The council also said that refresher training had been arranged and that staff had been reminded of the guidance, which correctly states that an AT5 notice cannot be provided retrospectively. We upheld this complaint, but we made no further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the policy to request AT5 notices in relation to council tax liability taking into account the findings of this investigation;
• take steps to ensure that relevant officers are familiar with the council's published guidance on Short Assured Tenancies and AT5 notices; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified within this investigation.

Summary

Mr C, a lawyer, complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A). Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling bins from Miss A's address as scheduled, and about the council's handling of Miss A's complaint.

The council acknowledged there had been operational failures leading to missed collections from Miss A's address. For example, collection crews failed to record missed uplifts. This resulted in Miss A having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions. The council's response to Miss A's complaint said they would ensure collections were not missed.

However, as Miss A had to report further missed collections to the council and complain to us, it was clear the council's response to her complaint failed to ensure recycling collections would take place. This called into question the quality of the council's investigation into Miss A's complaint and the remedy put in place as a result of her complaint.

We upheld Mr C's complaints and made recommendations. However, the council has taken action to address the failings in complaints handling and therefore we have made no recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss A for missed recycling collections and explain to Miss A why collections were missed and the steps that have been taken to prevent this from happening;
• ensure that the depot manager engages with Miss A directly to allay any future concerns and give a direct response and assurances in relation to recycling collections; and
• provide us with copies of monitoring sheets for recent collections to show that all recycling collections at Miss A's address have been carried out as scheduled.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling and waste from his address as scheduled. He also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

The council acknowledged there had been missed collections from Mr C's street and that reasons for this included collection crews having failed to record missed collections. This resulted in Mr C having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions.

We found that until we enquired, the council had failed to investigate and respond to Mr C's second formal complaint about the bin collections. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

The council have taken action to address their failings and Mr C told us the bin collection service was now consistent. We have therefore made no recommendations to the council.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that he had been experiencing odours in his house for several years and he believed that these odours were coming from his next door neighbour's house. Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to investigate and stop the odour ingress.

During the investigation, we carefully reviewed all the information provided by Mr C and the council. We found that the council had carried out a number of investigations and repairs, including installing air quality monitoring equipment and using a smoke machine to determine where the odours were ingressing, sealing stair treads and skirting boards, replastering walls, and repairing the solum (the area underneath the floorboards). Whilst we found that the council had taken reasonable action to investigate the odours and make repairs to the house, we recommended that the council consider whether there was any further action they could take as a smoke bomb test had revealed some ingress from one house into another.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether there are any further actions available to them that would be appropriate to implement in this case, given the results of the smoke bomb test.

Summary

Mr C reported problems with the behaviour of his neighbour, who is a private tenant, including a number of reports of noise nuisance, verbally abusive behaviour and other anti-social behaviour. Mr C wanted the council to take steps to address his concerns with his neighbour and his neighbour's landlord, who he had also contacted directly.

Council wardens attended following reports but concluded there was not sufficient evidence of noise or other nuisance to take further action.

The council made a number of attempts to resolve the situation with preventative measures but these were not successful.

As matters escalated, the council met with Mr C and the landlord but Mr C continued to experience behaviour from his neighbour that caused him distress.

Mr C complained to the council about their lack of action and a number of specific concerns about his interactions with council staff. The council responded to his specific concerns. Mr C remained concerned that the council had not taken adequate steps to address the problems he was experiencing and complained to our office.

Our investigation considered the statutory duty placed on the council to act, as well as the council's own procedures. We found that, in the absence of evidence of serious anti-social behaviour, the council had no duty to act. We also considered that the council's decision (that the evidence they had about the behaviour of Mr C's neighbour did not give them grounds for further action) was a reasonable one. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the way the council handled a request for a non-material variation (NMV) to a planning application. He said that the council had withheld and delayed the online publication of documentation. The NMV report by the council had contained two inaccuracies, which the council had already identified and agreed. Mr C felt that the council had failed to have appropriate policies/procedures in place to prevent inaccuracies in the published report and that, because of the errors identified, they had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV.

We sought independent planning advice. We found that there was no statutory obligation on the council to publish these documents. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that it did not appear that appropriate cross-checking had occurred in this case. We were concerned that the system of checks put in place in part to identify errors had failed on this occasion. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV due to the factual errors in the report. However, given that the council had already acknowledged the errors, apologised and discussed the matter with the planning officer concerned, and that the errors in the report did not lead us to question the soundness of the council's overall decision, we did not make further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• audit and, if necessary, review their process for checking reports and provide us with evidence of the outcome of the audit, as well as of action taken to improve any shortfalls.