CORPORATE LEADERSHIP TEAM ANNUAL REPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATIONS 2017/18

Transcription

1 CORPORATE LEADERSHIP TEAM ANNUAL REPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATIONS 2017/18 Report author Marissa Joyce, Customer Relations Officer Executive Summary A summary of the complaints received/investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman in 2017/18. The Council investigated a total of 226 formal complaints in 2017/18. 94% were resolved at Stage1, 4% at Stage2 and 2% at Stage3. Less than 3% of the total number of complaints resulted in a further complaint to the Ombudsman. The Directors and Team Managers were kept informed and advised of the detail and outcome of each complaint as it was received. Therefore, this is a summary report for information. They are also able to run adhoc reports for their own departments/teams from Covalent for any time period. Introduction In 2017/18 the Local Government Ombudsman reported that they received 6 complaints about the Council and made 8 decisions. This is the same number as the previous year 2016/17. This report refers to the 7 investigations the Council is aware of, as one of the complainants who was referred back to the Council chose not to do so. The outcomes of the 7 complaints investigated are as follows - Upheld 1 Referred back for local resolution 2 (as stated above only 1 actually came back to the Council for investigation) Closed after initial enquiries 3 Not upheld 1 Incomplete or invalid 1 1

2 The following table shows which Directorate the complaints related to - Managing Director Director of Customer and Community Services Director of Commercial & Corporate Resources Building Control 1 Planning enforcement - 1 Waste and Enforcement -2 Parks and Open Space - 1 Legal Services 1 Human Resources 1 Detail of complaints by Directorate Managing Director 2 complaints Building Control - I complaint reference , that the Council approved a Building Regulations application without carrying out proper checks on the building work and failed to control a drain, which Mr X said is in breach of Building Regulations. The complainants insurance company employed an agent to submit a building notice to inform the Council of its intention to carry out works to underpin his house. Mr X says the agent did not make the building notice application within 48 hours of the work starting, as he should have. Mr X believes the Council should have taken action because the application was late. The method chosen for underpinning works was to inject concrete into voids underneath the house. The work was carried out and in 2014 Mr X applied for a Building Regulations completion certificate. Mr X says that because the Council approved his application he now faces difficulties with his insurers and rectifying faults. He says there are no records to show where and to what depth injection holes were drilled, or at what pressure grout was pumped. Mr X thinks the Council should have carried out more thorough inspections and ensured the work was carried out properly. He believes the Council should not have agreed to sign off his Building Regulations completion certificate application without this information. Mr X also says the Council has failed to ensure a drain at his property conforms to Building Regulations. The Ombudsman found the Council was aware of its powers under the Building Acts when it considered Mr X s Building Regulations application for a completion certificate. They found the Council has also considered Mr X s drain and had used its judgement on the interpretation of the Regulations in the context of the site. The Council had followed the process the Ombudsman would expect, so it was entitled to reach the decision it has. If Mr X feels the work carried out was substandard in any way, he may choose to pursue his insurance company, its agent or other contractors. The Ombudsman could not say the Council should be held liable for any loss Mr X claims relating to the building work or that it caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Ombudsman found no fault in the way the Council acted and the complaint was not upheld. 2

3 Planning Enforcement - 1 complaint reference , about the Council s decision not to take enforcement action against car park operators who have erected signs setting out parking charges. Mr X wanted the Council to ask the operators to cover the signs and submit applications for their retention. Complaint resulted in formal Record of officer Delegated Decision that no enforcement action is required. The Ombudsman found further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault because enforcement is a discretionary power. It is for officers to decide whether to take enforcement action. It is not the Ombudsman s role to say whether the Council s decision is right. Nor is it the Ombudsman s role to issue guidance to local planning authorities on when they should take enforcement action. The Ombudsman found that any further investigation was unlikely to find fault by the Council and closed their investigation after initial enquiries. Customer and Community Services 3 complaints Parks and Open Spaces 1 1 complaint reference that at the back of Mr X S garden there are 2 trees which belong to the neighbour, over grown, approximately 10 metres high and could potentially collapse given recent storms. They also block out Mr X S sunlight. Officers from both CBC and CCC visited. CBC found we have no protected trees in that area, CCC found that the trees were outside the limits of adopted highway. A Ward Councillor became involved and in an effort to mediate between the complainant and the landowner, who after initially suggesting he may be willing to do some maintenance at his own expense subsequently decided that he would like to keep the trees. The outcome of the CBC inspection confirmed that the trees were sound and posed no significant safety risk. The Ombudsman found no evidence of procedural fault by the Council and recorded the complaint as incomplete or invalid. Waste and Enforcement complaint reference , about the location of a local recycling point close to where Mrs X lives. She says in recent years the site has declined and is an eyesore which causes rubbish to blow around the village. She also says the site it a health and safety risk. The Council empties the paper and card containers twice a week and the glass, plastic and cans containers weekly and its street cleaning team visit the site everyday to clean up any debris on the ground and report any health and safety issues. The site is well used by the community and it s emptied and cleaned according to a schedule. 3

4 The Ombudsman found the Council sold part of a car park it owned to a developer, specifically as a site for a local recycling facility for paper, card, glass, plastics and cans. Mrs X bought a house on the development and was aware of the recycling point. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Councils decision as to the location of the recycling point and the way it maintains it. 1 complaint reference that the Council failed to act on reports of fly tipping and failed to respond to her complaint. Mrs X said a neighbour had chipped a leylandii hedge and placed the chippings on the verge of the lane. Mrs X wanted the Council to remove the waste, fine or prosecute the people who placed it there and apologise to her for failing to action her complaints. An officer visited the site the day after the report of a fly tip was received, viewed the waste and decided enforcement was not expedient. The officer sent an to Mrs X to confirm this shortly after she made her report. And once she raised a formal complaint, the Council provided a full response. The Ombudsman found the Council had responded to Mrs X s complaint, officers had also sought advice from the relevant highways authority because the chipped bark is on a verge at the side of a bridleway. Officers from County had no concerns because the material is not on the bridleway and does not cause an obstruction. Enforcement is a discretionary power, not a duty. The Ombudsman found that any further investigation was unlikely to find fault by the Council and closed their investigation after initial enquiries. Commercial & Corporate Resources 2 complaints Legal Service 1 complaint that the Council failed to progress a complaint about councillor conduct in a timely manner. Ms X said that a Councillor breached the Code of Conduct by posting on social media comments about her made by a third party which were offensive, distressing and hurtful. The Council s Monitoring Officer (MO) acknowledged the complaint the following day. On the same day, the MO wrote to the Councillor advising a complaint had been made and strongly recommending that the offensive post and associated comments be taken down. The post was removed that day. In terms of outcome, the complaint went before the Audit and Governance Committee who unanimously agreed that breaches of the code of conduct had occurred. The complaint was unanimously upheld and full sanctions applied. The Ombudsman found whilst they had some sympathy with the position in which the Council found itself, in terms of the exceptionally large number of complaints it was receiving and the limited resources available to deal with these, the delays and poor communication experienced by Ms X were unacceptable and were fault. While the Council is not responsible for the councillor s actions, she has been put to some avoidable time, 14 months from receipt of her first complaint and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The Ombudsman found the complaint Upheld with maladministration and injustice. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms X by the Council s failings in this case, the Ombudsman recommended the Council issue a formal apology and pay Ms X 400 compensation. In terms of service improvements, the Council was considering proposals for a revised procedure for complaints about councillor conduct with shortened timescales. Under these proposals an Audit and Governance Sub-Committee will hold a first assessment hearing within one month of the complaint being received, and if that sub-committee considers it should go to a full hearing that will take place within the following month. The Council agreed to all the above recommendations. 4

5 Human Resources 1 complaint reference that the Council has failed to take any action following comments one of its officers made against Mr X at a town council meeting that he considered slanderous. The Council refuted the allegations and was satisfied that any advice given was given in good faith, within understanding of the issues as advised by other members of the town council and that Mr. X was not named by the Officer. The Ombudsman found they could not investigate Mr X complaint as he does not complain as a member of the public. Mr X complains from his position as a councillor and therefore in effect as part of a public body. The Ombudsman has no legal remit to investigate such complaints. The Ombudsman referred the case back for local resolution. Outcomes 1 complaint was upheld resulting in a compensation payment of 400 and a revised procedure for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints. Timescales All enquiries were responded to within the timescales set out by the Ombudsman, which is 2 working days for first enquiries and up to 28 working days for an investigation. Compliance rate (where the Ombudsman s recommendations are implemented) 100% Proposals To continue to resolve as many complaints as possible at a local level. Conclusion The number of complaints received in 2017/18 by the Ombudsman has remained the same as the previous year. The volume of complaints referred to the Ombudsman do not in itself indicate the quality of a council s performance. Therefore this information should be used to start a conversation rather than a measure of corporate health. The Council should continue to learn from complaints and encourage feedback from residents and visitors to inform future service planning and delivery. 5