SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council had failed to produce accurate reports for various planning applications. He also believed that officers had made mistakes whilst exercising their delegated authority. Mr C was also concerned the council had not followed the correct procedures for their planning committee. He said that the council's response to his complaint had been based on a report prepared by a firm of lawyers which had not responded to all the issues he had raised, or recognised matters which Mr C considered were an established matter of fact. We took independent planning advice. We found that the council's approach had been confusing at times and was poorly worded. We noted that this had led to delays in the planning process; however, it had not materially affected the decision reached by the planning committee. We found that although there was disagreement between some of the council officers consulted and the planning officers who had reached the delegated decisions, the decisions themselves represented the reasonable exercising of professional judgement by the planning officers. We also found that there was no maladministration in the planning committee's adherence to the council's Standing Orders and Scheme of Administration. However, we did note that the documents were confusing. The council had recognised the wording of the Scheme of Administration around site visits and voting was unclear. They had already agreed to take steps to address this. We also found that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's complaints by commissioning an investigation by an external law firm. Although this had not answered each point raised by Mr C, we found that it had provided a reasonable response, which had addressed his underlying concerns. We did not, therefore, uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201807697 as a PDF (24.6 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mrs C, who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and cognitive/mental health difficulties, said that the council failed to take these matters into account when dealing with her housing transfer. She said that as a consequence, she felt pressured and suffered a breakdown. She said she felt that she was camping in her new home which was unsuitable. She further complained that she was held responsible for repairs to her former home, which was unreasonable. In response to her complaint, the council said that they had acted in terms of Mrs C's request for single storey accommodation which was suitable for wheelchair access, but that in the 12 years of her being a council tenant prior to her visit to their offices, they had been unaware that she had any medical needs. It was at this time that Mrs C advised of her MS. However, she made no mention of other illnesses or problem for which she required support. Mrs C was subsequently allocated new, ground floor accommodation which she accepted, and shortly afterwards made an application for support mentioning her cognitive and memory problems. Two support staff were allocated to her and worked with her for over a year. They made over 60 visits and she was also helped with her rent. While Mrs C qualified for a removal grant, the council said that this was reduced to take into account repair costs required to put her former home into a lettable condition. We made further enquiries of the council and found that after Mrs C first advised the council of her request to move, she attended their offices ten months later to confirm her request. The application form she completed indicated that she had MS but no further need for support. It was only after she accepted the offer made to her that Mrs C revealed the extent of her illnesses and her associated needs. Support officers were allocated to help her for an extended period of time and there was no evidence that she had been put under pressure to accept the offer made to her or to

Mr C complained that the council had decided to relocate a disabled parking space to a position further from his home. They had initially marked out the space close to his home. However, after consultation with other residents, they decided to move it to a position 15 metres further away. They explained that this space was the most appropriate location for the convenience of all car park users and provided access for blue badge holders and more space for wheelchair users, should this be required. We considered the legislation in relation to parking places for disabled persons. Although the council had delayed in starting the consultation process, the decision to move the disabled parking space was one they were entitled to take. They had subsequently decided on its location in line with the relevant legislation. In view of this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201302135 as a PDF (11.03 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of issues about the adequacy of consultation about a review of a particular water management policy for a local area of water. He felt that the council had failed to take reasonable account of opposition that they had received from statutory consultees to the policy review, and had failed to carry out adequate consultation with the public. During our investigation we found that the policy review was on-going and that no decision had been taken. We were provided with evidence of the level of consultation carried with the public and the level of interaction with the statutory consultees and the action taken in response to the comments received from the consultees. They had clearly consulted, considered the responses and replied to the complaints, and we found no evidence that the way this was done was inappropriate. Related reading View Decision Report 201203213 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

After moving into a council property, Mr A told the council that water was coming in at the front door and there was mould growing in the bathroom. The council arranged to paint the bathroom but the mould problems continued, and the front door leak was not repaired. Mr A submitted a formal complaint and also raised concerns about draughts and condensation in the bedrooms. He said that this had forced him to sleep in the lounge area and that the problems with dampness, mould and drafts had had an adverse impact on his health. Mr A was re-housed within two days of submitting his complaint to the council and, in formally responding to the complaint, they acknowledged that they had not followed their normal process in dealing with the repairs. They apologised for the inconvenience, undertook to speak to staff to avoid similar future problems, and compensated Mr A for damaged possessions and mail items. Mr A was not satisfied with this and requested that his rent payments be refunded. The council did not consider this appropriate as, in their view, Mr A had also contributed to the problem by failing to adequately heat and ventilate the property. Miss C, an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of Mr A that the council had failed to reasonably address the problems with the property and failed to acknowledged that the problems were there before Mr A's tenancy started. To support this, she provided a letter from a previous tenant who said that he had also told the council about problems of water coming in and mould growth. Our enquiries revealed that required repair work, identified before the departure of the previous tenant, was not carried out before Mr A started his tenancy. We also found that the council should have carried out an inspection between tenancies, but this was not done. We noted that the council had then been slow to respond to repair requests by Mr A and that the required repair to the front door was not carried out at all during his tenancy

Mr and Mrs C have a teenage son with a disability. They were unhappy with the council’s handling of an assessment of their need for an increased respite service and said there was poor communication. They complained to the council’s social work service. Their complaint was fully upheld and three recommendations were made and implemented, one on a limited basis. Mr and Mrs C were not satisfied and made a request that their complaint be taken to a complaints review committee (CRC). When that request was not met they complained to us about the council’s failure to meet their request and failure to communicate with them. We upheld both elements of Mr and Mrs C's complaint. Our investigation found that there had been an unacceptable delay in convening the CRC because the council lacked a full panel of appropriately qualified persons. There had also been continuing poor communication by the council in telling Mr and Mrs C about the reasons for this delay.