SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council failed to assess a planning application for a house on neighbouring land correctly and consistently with previous decisions taken, and that they delayed in making relevant drawings available on their online planning portal. We also investigated Mr C's complaint that he was not given an adequate opportunity to provide further information in support of his complaint under the council's complaints procedure. Our investigation found that there were some areas where Mr C's complaint about the assessment of the planning application were justified, particularly in relation to the accuracy of the planning officer's report to committee. However, there was no evidence of fault in the way the planning application was handled, and this was consistent with previous decisions about the site. We also concluded that the council's explanation about timescales for uploading information to their portal was reasonable, and we did not support Mr C's complaint of delay. When we investigated how the council had handled Mr C's complaint, we found that they had complied with their procedure. They had made it clear to him that there was an approaching deadline, and we considered it would have been reasonable for Mr C to contact the council to seek more time to provide information, if necessary. Related reading View Decision Report 201303345 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council had failed to adequately consider Mr A's request for a disabled person's parking bay. We found that the council had adequately considered Mr A's application and had considered both his own and his wife's medical circumstances. The decision to refuse the application because a disabled person's parking bay had already been installed at the rear of Mr A's property was a decision that the council were entitled to take. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. That said, Mr C also complained about how Mr A had been notified of the decision on his application. The council's process for applications for a disabled person's parking bay clearly states that the council should advise the applicant in writing that either the request has been forwarded to the roads service for consideration or that the applicant does not meet the criteria. The council had referred Mr A's application to their roads service for consideration, but they had failed to notify Mr A of this in writing in line with their process. The council had then phoned Mr A to tell him that they had refused his application, but there was subsequently some confusion for both Mr A and the council about whether a decision had in fact been made. In view of this, we upheld this complaint.

Mrs C complained that, following a flood caused by a burst pipe in an upstairs owner-occupied property, the council delayed in moving her and her family to suitable alternative emergency accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. She was also unhappy that a member of staff had ended a phone call, accusing her and her husband of using inappropriate language. She was also dissatisfied when the council told her that her refusal to lift the laminate flooring in her home had caused the drying process to take substantially longer and resulted in additional damage. We considered the points she had raised, and found that the council had offered suitable wheelchair-accessible temporary bed and breakfast accommodation on the day of the flood. We noted that the council did not consider that moving house was necessary but had continued to offer temporary bed and breakfast accommodation which Mrs C and her husband refused as being unsuitable, in part because the family pet could not be accommodated. We also noted that Mrs C had initially refused (partly on the basis of advice from their insurers) to agree to the laminate flooring being lifted, and that the council's surveyors were of the view that the delay in lifting the laminate flooring had caused water to filter into the walls and cause additional damage. The council's policy on laminate flooring places responsibility for the lifting and replacement of laminate flooring with the tenant. Finally, although we were unable to determine exactly what was said in the phone call when Mrs C and her husband were accused of using inappropriate language, we did review the council's unacceptable actions policy which gives staff the authority to end calls where they consider the language being used is not appropriate. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407345 as a PDF (11.5 KB) Updated: Mar

Mrs A moved to a different council property because her previous property was due to be demolished. When she began redecorating, she found that the living room and bedroom walls were damp. Various inspector visits took place but Mrs A was not satisfied that reasonable repairs had taken place and she complained to the council. The council admitted fault and refunded most, but not all, the rent Mrs A had paid. Mrs A remained unhappy about the condition of her property and the rent situation, and Mr C complained to us on Mrs A's behalf. We concluded that Mrs A's property had not been watertight when it was let to her, and that there had been an unreasonable delay by the council in repairing the roof. We also considered that the council could have more clearly explained to Mrs A why she was not entitled to a full refund of rent, and we recommended an apology and a goodwill payment to recognise that the repair work should have been done quicker. We did not uphold Mrs A's complaint about the council's refusal to undertake a comprehensive programme of works at her property.

Mrs C complained to the council that she had been forced into a meeting at the end of the school day to discuss her daughter's homework, when she was anxious about collecting another of her children from a different school. She alleged that staff were intimidating and behaved unprofessionally. She also complained about how the school communicated with her. She was dissatisfied with the response she received and complained that her complaints had not been adequately and seriously addressed. Our investigation considered the correspondence between Mrs C and the council and the school, and the council's complaints handling procedure and records of investigation. We found that the council had inappropriately handled her complaint as a first stage in their procedure when more detailed investigation was required of the serious complaints made. There was no evidence that staff had behaved in the way Mrs C alleged and a second investigation addressed the points she had made more comprehensively. The council's final response identified some short-comings in communication and the timings of approach to Mrs C at the end of the school day and we upheld her complaint about how the council had dealt with her complaint.

Ms C owns an end of terrace house that is joined to a council owned property. When the council carried out improvement works on the roof of their property they required access to it through Ms C's garden. Ms C complained that she had not been told in advance by the council that the works would be carried out. She also complained that the council's contractors had damaged her garden and her roof while carrying out the works, and that she had to pay for the damage. The council said that Ms C was sent a letter in advance of the works. They offered to remedy the damage made to the garden, however said they were not liable for the damage to the roof. During our investigation we found that the council did not have any evidence that Ms C was informed of the works in advance and so upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to address it in future. We noted that the council had offered to remedy the damage in the garden, however the contractor had then not done this. For this reason, we upheld the complaint and recommended that the works take place as soon as possible. We concluded that the council had caused some of the damage to Ms C's roof and had not taken steps to remedy it. We upheld this complaint and recommended they reimburse Ms C for the cost of the repairs.

Mr C applied for planning permission in 2007, which was granted with conditions. Mr C began works on the site a couple of years later. In July 2013 the council contacted Mr C and informed him that he had not satisfied all of the conditions of the planning permission prior to work starting, and they had not been formally discharged. They invited him to submit the information regarding the conditions for them to be discharged. Mr C said he had been given verbal approval by the planning officer at the time, but did not recall getting anything in writing. Mr C submitted further information in August 2013. In November that year, the council wrote to Mr C to inform him that as the conditions had not been discharged within the five year period in which the permission had been granted, the application had lapsed and he would have to submit a new application and pay the associated fee for doing so. Mr C complained about this and came to us. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who was of the view that the council, by its own standards for discharging conditions, had not followed the proper procedure. Our adviser also noted that the council had not specified in all the conditions that they needed to be satisfied in writing. We accepted our adviser's view and in light of the evidence we found we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address the issues identified. We also recommended the council apologise to Mr C. However, our adviser also noted the responsibility of the applicant to ensure they have all the proper permissions before starting works on site. In considering this, we recommended that the council reduce the new application fee by half, to reflect the shared responsibilities of both parties. Mr C had also complained about the way the council handled his complaint. We were satisfied the appropriate person had investigated it, but it had taken six weeks for a response to be issued to Mr C. For this reason, we upheld t

Ms C complained about the way the council handled changes to her council tax when she started work and stopped getting employment support allowance. Ms C contacted the council to tell them about the change in her circumstances. She knew that she was no longer entitled to a council tax reduction and wanted the necessary adjustments to be made to her council tax payments, which she made by direct debit. We found that the council did not act efficiently on the information provided and were responsible for confusion in the administration of Ms C's council tax. The team responsible for council tax reduction had not acted on an electronic notification from the Department of Work and Pensions and when Ms C contacted the council's customer contact centre she was given mixed messages about the process by which changes would be made to her account. Each time Ms C phoned the council she should have been transferred to the benefits service or invited to join the service phone queue in line with the council's agreed call-handling process. There was no evidence that this process was followed. Consequently it took more than 12 months for the council tax reduction to be removed so that the team responsible for council tax could adjust Ms C's account, by which time she had accrued significant arrears. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably took a payment from her bank account without prior warning. We did not uphold this complaint because there was no evidence that the council told Ms C when she made an additional payment by phone that the usual amount would not also be taken by direct debit.

Mr C and his family own a number of rented properties. He said that he applied online to renew the registration of the properties rented and jointly owned. Some family members’ applications were approved, and confirmatory emails were received. However, Mr C did not notice that confirmation had not been given for his and another family member’s application, and that payment had not been taken. He thought that this might have been due to the applications being incomplete, and that the council should have noticed this. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to send reminders after the renewal date lapsed, and had charged him a late payment fee. Landlord Registration is a mandatory registration scheme for all private landlords in Scotland and all local authorities have a statutory duty to deliver this within their areas. The scheme allows councils to establish their own processes to administer the scheme locally, taking into account the primary legislation and associated regulations. Our investigation found that there was no evidence that the council had received an application from Mr C and had failed to act on it. Although the council did not contact him for some time after the deadline for registration lapsed, the onus to register rested with the applicant, and the late payment fee he was asked to pay was in line with the registration scheme. Related reading View Decision Report 201401352 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

When Mr C bought his home, the road outside had a number of speed cushions to slow down traffic. Some years later, the council decided that the road needed to be resurfaced. When they checked the condition of the speed cushions, they found that these had deteriorated and could not be reused. In the months immediately following the resurfacing, temporary vehicle activated speed signs were installed, and speeds and traffic volumes were monitored. The council then consulted on the re-introduction of traffic calming measures, but found that there was significant opposition to their specific proposals. Knowing the range of public opinion, senior roads officers met with local councillors and agreed a revised scheme with fewer speed cushions. At the time, they obtained legal advice that they did not need to consult again on the revised proposals, and the new traffic calming measures were installed. Mr C was not living in the property when this happened, and when he returned he found that traffic volume and speeds had increased, and there was excessive noise in his home. He complained to the council about the changes, and made various information requests. He then complained to us that the council had not taken the appropriate steps when considering and implementing the new measures, and had failed to act on collected data which indicated that the measures that they had put in place were inadequate. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as our investigation found that the consultation was extensive and appropriate. We also found that since the measures were introduced, council officers had examined the results of two further monitoring exercises and found no reason to amend the scheme. This was a decision for them to take as professionals, and not something that we could consider where there was no evidence of maladministration in the taking of the decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201300924 as a PDF (11.52 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C purchased a property, which proved to have significant structural problems in an extension completed by the previous owner. Mr C made a number of complaints about the completion certificate process, and said that the council had failed to ensure that the local authority building surveyor who verified the certificate had carried out his role properly. He was also unhappy with the council's complaints handling. Mr C said that the building warrant for the property had expired, and no extension had been sought before the certificate of completion was granted. He believed that this meant that the building regulations in force at the time of the inspection should have applied to the property. He said that this would have required a different type of electrical certificate to that presented to the surveyor, and would have resulted in significant problems with the electrics being identified. Mr C thought that the council would not then have approved the completion certificate, and he would not have purchased the property. Our investigation found that the local authority did not have responsibility to carry out anything more than a non-disruptive survey, and that responsibility for ensuring that work on the property matched that described on the building warrant lay with the individual submitting the completion certificate. We also found that the grounds for refusing an extension to a building warrant only apply where little or no construction has taken place. In this case the building was completed within the timeframe of the warrant and the completion certificate applied for, so there would have been no grounds for refusal. We also found that the extent of a non-disruptive survey was a matter of professional judgement for the building surveyor. Although Mr C disputed the professionalism of his work, this was not a matter that we could consider. We also found that the surveyor was only required to carry out a 'reasonable enquiry' with regard to specialist matt

Mr C complained about the heating system in his council property. He said that it was inefficient, that the council had failed to explain the system to him before he signed the tenancy agreement and had refused to allow him to opt out of the heating service. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations about it. The heating system was a communal one, paid for by all the tenants in the block of flats, and had been installed a number of years before. The council accepted that, although it had been upgraded over the years, the system required further upgrading to make it more efficient, and said that they were in the process of planning to replace it. However, they said they were satisfied that it met their operational standard to provide suitable and safe heating. They also explained that the system was serviced on an annual basis and that, during the last service, no issues had been raised. During our investigation, we found that the separate charge for the heating system had, in error, not been detailed on the tenancy agreement and that the council had no documentation to show that the heating system was explained to Mr C when he viewed the property before signing the tenancy agreement so we upheld his complaint about this. However, we did not uphold his other complaints as we were satisfied that the council had provided a proper heating system and had responded to his representations. They had explained that he could not opt out of the heating system, as it was communal, and that it could not be turned off for a single property.

Mr C made an application to the Scottish Welfare Fund for a crisis grant but the council refused this because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C asked for the decision to be reviewed, because he was waiting for his benefit application to be processed. After the review, the council told Mr C the original decision would not change and no award would be made. Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his application. In particular, he said the council's communication was poor; there was an unreasonable delay in processing his second tier review (a further review by a panel who are not part of the Fund team); and the guidance was not followed properly. We examined what happened in Mr C's case against the relevant guidance from the Scottish Government, and upheld his complaints. Our investigation found that the council did not explain the evidence that Mr C should put forward when requesting a review, and had not responded to the concerns he raised in his request for a review. The guidance says the applicant should understand why a decision has been made. Mr C was also not told when the panel would consider his second tier review or about his right to see the documents that would be considered. The council also accepted there was a delay in processing that review. They said his letter requesting this was misfiled into his housing benefit file. Finally, the council told Mr C his application was refused because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. However, the guidance clearly states the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant is the severity of the applicant's situation.

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his claim for compensation after he damaged his suit on a protruding screw in a council-owned building. He also complained about their decision to limit the sum they agreed to pay him to the cost of replacing his jacket, rather than the whole suit, about their failure to respond to email correspondence, about the reasons they gave for delay in progressing his claim and said there was a failure to respond to his complaint accurately and promptly. We found that there was a delay in assessing his claim. The reason for this was the delay in receiving witness statements from the local service. Because of this delay, and because they failed to meet their own time targets, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. We found that the council did respond fully, and accurately, to his complaint. However, because they failed to advise him how to progress it to the next stage, and at the final stage failed to meet their own timescales, we also upheld this aspect of his complaint. As, however, the council acknowledged and apologised for both delays, and as they have now introduced a new complaints process, we made no recommendations. Although Mr C was dissatisfied with the amount the council agreed to pay to compensate him, we agreed with the council that the complaints process was not the way to challenge this, as the question of legal liability is one for the courts to consider. Related reading View Decision Report 201300737 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of himself and his neighbours about the council’s handling of a planning application for the erection of a telecommunications mast near his home. Mr C said that he and his neighbours only became aware of this some seven months after it was approved, when work started at the site. He complained that the council failed to carry out the necessary public notifications on the planning application, failed to process the application correctly, and that their report on the planning application was misleading. In response to our enquiries, the council said that they sent a neighbour notification letter to Mr C in the same way as to other notifiable residents. Although the letter did not appear to have reached Mr C, the evidence suggested that the council did send it, in accordance with normal procedure. We took independent advice on the other matters from one of our planning advisers who said that the council acted appropriately and advertised the application in accordance with the regulations. The council had, however, acknowledged there were failings in notifying objectors of the outcome of the application and apologised for this. Our adviser said that their remedial action was not sufficient and that further steps should be taken, so we made recommendations that reflect this. We also noted that in the planning report the council incorrectly named the newspaper in which the application was advertised, but considered it unlikely that consideration of the application was prejudiced by this. In terms of processing the application, our adviser explained that it would be normal practice for there to be some consultation between the council's planning and roads departments. It was clear that there was no record of consultation in this case although the council repeatedly said that it had happened. Based on the evidence on file, it was not possible for us to determine whether or not it did happen, and we were critical of the council for failing t

Ms C raised her concern about the consultation carried out by the council before they installed street furniture, in particular a bench opposite her home. She said that they unreasonably failed to consult with the appropriate council departments, the community council and residents affected, and that they had misled her when responding to her representations about this. Ms C maintained that there had been no consultation. During our investigation we found that the council were not required to consult with any groups when deciding to locate street furniture. In this case, however, there had been discussions between relevant council officers and the council also maintained that there was consultation with the community council and further discussions with members of the community council. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's views and did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201203029 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C, an owner-occupier, complained to the police and to the council that a council tenant in the flat below was smoking cannabis or allowing cannabis to be smoked and this was diffusing into the common stair and into her flat. As a result of a police visit, a person in the flat admitted he had been smoking cannabis. Our investigation found that after Miss C complained to the council, a housing officer visited the tenant and gave a verbal and written warning about adhering to their conditions of tenancy. While Miss C complained that the council had failed to take proper action and had failed to answer the specific questions she had raised in her letters of complaint, the evidence we saw did not bear this out. Related reading View Decision Report 201202080 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The area of the town where Mr C lives was excluded from the council's controlled parking proposals and Mr C and another resident felt that the parking problems had worsened since then. Mr C pressed for his area to be added to the controlled parking zone and organised a survey of residents, which met with a positive response to the introduction of controls. Mr C complained that the council delayed in progressing the matter; did not adequately explain a public consultation process they undertook; and the timing of the consultation was inappropriate, denying the local community council the opportunity to comment. Mr C was also unhappy about action taken by officers following a series of meetings and alleged the council had cancelled at short notice a public meeting arranged by the community council. We did not uphold any of Mr C's five complaints. The council explained that they had perceived that not all local residents supported the introduction of controlled parking, and so decided to conduct a public consultation. This was, however, delayed because of parliamentary elections. Our investigation did not find the explanation of the purpose and timing of this inappropriate. The consultation revealed a significant body of objection in the area, and when this was reported, the committee decided to take no immediate action. A later meeting with officers had involved robust disagreement. On the basis of the council officers’ report, Mr C was then sent a warning about his future conduct and he himself submitted a formal complaint. After this, the council decided that, in the lead up period to local elections, officers should not participate in a public meeting arranged by the community council, although officers later attended a re-arranged meeting. Related reading View Decision Report 201200304 as a PDF (11.5 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C, who lived with her partner, complained when she unexpectedly received a retrospective bill for council tax when the council removed a single occupancy discount from the account. Miss C said the council should not have applied a single occupancy discount when her partner had not applied for it. She said the council should have known that he was no longer a single occupant because he was a council tenant and they had attended the council's housing office together to enter into a joint tenancy. Miss C complained because she said that when they went to the council an officer had told them that they did not have to do anything more, and that their rent and council tax payments would stay the same. Miss C also complained that she had been caused a great deal of frustration by the council's poor handling of her initial enquiry and complaint. The council said they could not be sure what advice was given to Miss C and her partner when they went to the council office to sign the new tenancy agreement. They said there was no agreement in place to exchange information between the housing team and the revenues team administering council tax. They said that they would consider whether such an agreement would be useful in future. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council sent revised council tax notices after the joint tenancy had been entered into, as well as a new council tax notice at the start of each new financial year. These clearly indicated that a discount had been applied on the basis of sole occupancy. This was clearly incorrect and Miss C and her partner should have brought this to the attention of the council. We did, however, find shortcomings in the council's handling of Miss C's initial enquiries and complaint. Officers had not taken ownership of the issues, and unreasonably referred Miss C back to the council's contact centre when it was clear she was dissatisfied and had a complaint. The contact centre had no

Mrs C complained that the council failed to notify her when her neighbour applied for an amendment to planning permission for an extension. She also said that the council issued a completion certificate for the extension although the works were not completed, and had failed to rectify this. Mrs C also complained that the council delayed in investigating her complaint and did not investigate it properly. Our investigation found that the council granted the original planning permission in 2010, and that they had already apologised to Mrs C for failing to notify her about this. We also found that the planning permission had never been amended and so there had not been any further fault in providing Mrs C with neighbour notification. The work that had not been completed in accordance with the approved plans was to paint the wall facing Mrs C's garden. We found that the building warrant granted for the works said that the wall was to be finished in render but, as the colour of the render was not relevant to the warrant, the fact that it was not painted did not impact on the granting of a completion certificate. The council had in fact tried to negotiate with Mrs C's neighbour to have her paint the wall, and although she had said she would do so, this had not yet happened. Any formal action (enforcement) is a matter for the council's discretion. The council had decided, as they were entitled to do, that they could not justify taking formal action to enforce a colour change on a wall that was not open to public view, so we did not criticise their actions on this. We did, however, make recommendations about their notification process and about how they take the matter forward. We found that there was a slight delay by the council in responding to the complaint, but that they had already explained the reason for this and apologised to Mrs C. We did not find any other faults in their complaints handling.

Mr C applied, through architects, for planning consent to demolish a small bungalow and to build a substantial two storey house. There were no objections to his application and it was determined under the council's scheme of delegation (where the decision is taken by planning officers rather than by a committee of the council). Although a supportive engineer's report and landscape report were provided, the planning case officer had reservations about recommending approval. There was also a replacement local plan being discussed. Because of this, the officer suggested three times that the application should be withdrawn and resubmitted. Mr C, however, insisted on continuing with the application. When officers decided to refuse planning permission, Mr C engaged a planning consultant and requested that the decision be reviewed. The local review board considered this and, by a narrow majority, upheld the officers' decision. Mr C complained to the council about the handling of the application and the review process. Mr C then made seven complaints to us detailing a large number of points that he wished considered. Four of the seven complaints were about his concerns that there were deficiencies in the processing of the initial application and the report of handling; two were about the administration and conduct of the local review board; and the seventh was about the council's handling of his complaint. We upheld two of the complaints - about the processing of the initial application and inadequacies in the report of handling. We did not, however, find that the officers unreasonably withheld consent, and we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Our investigation found that, in large measure, identical issues had been set out in the planning consultant's very detailed submission to the local review board. We did not uphold Mr C's other complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201002860 as a PDF (11.55 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council had written, without her permission, to her GP about a council tax exemption, which had been granted many years previously on the basis of her mental health disorder. Having obtained the opinion of Ms C's GP the council then removed the exemption, generating a large council tax bill. Ms C said that this was unreasonable given that the council knew she was unwell. The council requested repeat information and forms from Ms C before agreeing to reinstate the exemption. Our investigation found that, although distressing for Ms C, the actions of the council had not been unreasonable. A query over Ms C's entitlement to an exemption had arisen and the council had a right to investigate. Once they were satisfied that Ms C did qualify for the exemption, having reasonably requested further evidence from a different clinician, it was reinstated. Related reading View Decision Report 201202602 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to the council about aspects of their reasoning in deciding to give planning permission for a development on property adjoining her own. After the council responded to her, she complained to us that their responses had unreasonably ignored some of the specific issues she raised. We investigated the complaint, but considered that the council's responses had reasonably provided all of the information or clarification she had requested. Related reading View Decision Report 201202568 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for two wind turbines which were proposed to be built some distance from their rural farmhouse. The application was submitted in 2011 following two previous applications, one of which had been withdrawn and one of which had been refused. Mr and Mrs C were particularly concerned about the adequacy of acoustic reports submitted by the applicant's agents and had sent the council several letters about this, making representations about their concerns. They complained to us that the council did not reasonably respond to their enquiries about noise and other issues. They were also unhappy with a report about the application submitted to the council's committee, because they felt that the methods the council had used to assess the impact of noise from the proposed development on their property had not been reasonable. Our investigation did not uphold either complaint. However, we noted that when Mr and Mrs C complained of not getting a response to points raised in their representations, a senior planning officer told them that it was not possible for the council to correspond because of the volume of objections received from third parties and because responding to third parties might be construed as prejudicial to the council's later consideration of an application. Mr and Mrs C had not been told this when their representations were acknowledged, so we made a recommendation to the council about this. In respect of the second complaint, we found that the council's report was full and balanced and the consideration of whether Mr and Mrs C's property would be affected by noise was in line with central government advice.

Mr C applied for planning permission to install solar panels in the grounds of his property, which was a Grade B listed building. He told us that he had intended to take advantage of the government's feed-in tariff scheme, which paid energy producers for excess electricity that was returned to the national grid. The council approved the planning application, but applied a condition requiring him to dismantle the equipment after ten years. Whilst they advised him that he could reapply after ten years to extend the permission, Mr C was reluctant to proceed on this basis. He asked for the condition to be reviewed by the planning Local Review Body (LRB), noting that the feed-in tariff scheme was intended to run over a 25 year period. The LRB concluded that a 25 year time-limited condition would be more appropriate and granted planning permission on that basis. However, while Mr C was pursuing his appeal with the LRB, the government changed the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme, making his solar panels financially non-viable. Mr C complained that the council applied a 'catch-all' condition, normally used for wind turbines, to his planned solar panel installation. He also complained that they should have made him aware of the ten year condition at the pre-application stage, as it is applied consistently across all renewable energy developments. Mr C felt that the council should have applied conditions that reflected the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme. Our investigation confirmed that Mr C had attended a pre-application meeting with the council's planning officer. Whilst the planning officer said that she had told Mr C about the ten year condition, there was no record of this and we were unable to confirm what information, if any, was provided. We found that it would have been good practice for the council to provide details of any standard conditions at the pre-application stage, but noted that there was no statutory obligation for them to do so. We learne