The Local Government Ombudsman’s
Annual Letter
Welwyn and Hatfield
District Council
for the year ended
31 March 2008
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
provides a free, independent and impartial
service. We consider complaints about the
administrative actions of councils and some
other authorities. We cannot question what a
council has done simply because someone
does not agree with it. If we find something has
gone wrong, such as poor service, service
failure, delay or bad advice, and that a person
has suffered as a result, the Ombudsmen aim
to get it put right by recommending a suitable
remedy. The LGO also uses the findings from
investigation work to help authorities provide
better public services through initiatives such
as special reports, training and annual letters.
Annual Letter 2007/08 - Introduction
This annual letter provides a summary of the complaints we have received about Welwyn and Hatfield
District Council. We have included comments on the authority’s performance and complaint-handling
arrangements, where possible, so they can assist with your service improvement.
I hope that the letter will be a useful addition to other information your authority holds on how people
experience or perceive your services.
Two attachments form an integral part of this letter: statistical data covering a three year period and a
note to help the interpretation of the statistics.
Complaints received
Volume
In 2007/08 I received 26 complaints against your Council, a similar number to that received in
2006/07.
Character
The main subject area of complaints was housing. I received four complaints concerning housing
repairs, four about management of tenancies and one about a leasehold matter. Three of the
complainants here made two complaints, so there were six individual complainants. I also received
five complaints about anti-social behaviour, two from the same complainant. (These complaints are
included under our ‘Other’ heading).
Three complaints were about council tax, three related to planning or building regulation applications
and one was about planning advice. The others concerned fees for burials, charges for theatre hire,
environmental health, planning enforcement and housing benefit.
Decisions on complaints
During 2007/08 I made decisions on 28 cases.
Reports and local settlements
A ‘local settlement’ is a complaint where, during the course of our investigation, the Council has
agreed to take some action which we consider is a satisfactory response to the complaint. The
investigation is then discontinued. In 2007/08 the Local Government Ombudsmen determined 27% of
complaints by local settlement (excluding ‘premature’ complaints - where councils have not had a
proper chance to deal with them - and those outside our jurisdiction). None of the complaints we
investigated this year justified the issue of a report.
I agreed five local settlements in 2007/08. When dealing with a planning application, the Council failed
to notify the complainant and made an inaccurate reference in the officer’s report to the distance
between their property and the development. In view of the actual distance between the two, it was
unlikely that the Council would have come to a different decision on the application, but the Council
agreed to pay £200 to the complainant for the uncertainty caused, and their time and trouble in
complaining.
/…
Page 2
Failings in planning enforcement led to a payment of £200 to another complainant. The Council had
taken over a year to investigate an alleged breach of planning control: for six months no action was
taken and then there was further delay in agreeing a date for a site visit. The complainant was not
kept informed of the reasons for the delay, or given any proper reasons for the decision that there was
no breach. The complainant had previously reported another breach, where delay led to the
development becoming immune from enforcement action. So they were understandably concerned
about the delay in this case. As well as making the payment, the Council agreed to write to the
complainant explaining how the decision had been made and how the site would be monitored in
future. The complainant has since made a fresh complaint about failure to control development at the
site. This is ongoing.
The Council failed properly to help a young person leaving care with their housing needs. It relied too
heavily on the County Council to ensure the young person knew they understood the consequences
of refusing offered accommodation. It also failed to fulfil its duty to offer advice and assistance to the
young person once it had been decided to evict them from their temporary accommodation. After my
intervention the Council liaised with the County Council to help find the young person suitable
accommodation. It has agreed to review its procedures, to send copies of offers of accommodation to
any young person’s care worker and to offer appointments with the young person and their care
worker. It also amended its letter advising it had discharged its housing duty to make it clear that if
there was a change of circumstances then a fresh homelessness application could be made.
In another housing complaint the Council agreed to reassess medical evidence it had used to decide
not to assign a tenancy.
Finally, the Council agreed that its leaflet about burial charges was not entirely clear, and readily
agreed to improve this wording.
Other findings
In eight of the cases I considered I did not find any evidence that the Council was at fault. Two
complaints concerned matters outside my jurisdiction. In three cases I used my discretion not to
investigate further. Finally, ten cases were referred back to the Council as I considered it had not had
an adequate opportunity to consider and respond before I became involved.
Liaison with the Local Government Ombudsman
I ask councils to reply to my enquiries within 28 calendar days. Your Council's average response time,
33.1 days, was again outside this target and slipped slightly from last year. One response, concerning
the planning enforcement case, took 62 days to arrive. In this case there was also a delay in
implementing the agreed settlement. This is extremely disappointing. In contrast, my office received a
quick and helpful response on the complaint about burial charges.
My Assistant Ombudsman with responsibility for your Council has recently met with you and some of
your officers to discuss issues affecting our work. I trust that you found this meeting as useful as he
did.
Training in complaint handling
Part of our role is to provide advice and guidance about good administrative practice. We offer training
courses for all levels of local authority staff in complaints handling and investigation. This year we
carried out a detailed evaluation of the training with councils that have been trained over the past
three years. The results are very positive.
/…
Page 3
The range of courses is expanding in response to demand. In addition to the generic Good Complaint
Handling (identifying and processing complaints) and Effective Complaint Handling (investigation and
resolution) we now offer these courses specifically for social services staff and a course on reviewing
complaints for social care review panel members. We can run open courses for groups of staff from
different smaller authorities and also customise courses to meet your Council’s specific requirements.
All courses are presented by an experienced investigator so participants benefit from their knowledge
and expertise of complaint handling.
I have enclosed some information on the full range of courses available together with contact details
for enquiries and any further bookings.
LGO developments
We launched the LGO Advice Team in April, providing a first contact service for all enquirers and new
complainants. Demand for the service has been high. Our team of advisers, trained to provide
comprehensive information and advice, has dealt with many thousands of calls since the service
started.
The team handles complaints submitted by telephone, email or text, as well as in writing. This new
power to accept complaints other than in writing was one of the provisions of the Local Government
and Public Involvement in Health Act, which also came into force in April. Our experience of
implementing other provisions in the Act, such as complaints about service failure and apparent
maladministration, is being kept under review and will be subject to further discussion. Any feedback
from your Council would be welcome.
Last year we published two special reports providing advice and guidance on ‘applications for prior
approval of telecommunications masts’ and ‘citizen redress in local partnerships’. Again, I would
appreciate your feedback on these, particularly on any complaints protocols put in place as part of the
overall governance arrangements for partnerships your Council has set up.
Conclusions and general observations
I welcome this opportunity to give you my reflections about the complaints my office has dealt with
over the past year. I hope that you find the information and assessment provided useful
when seeking
improvements to your Council’s services.
Tony Redmond
Local Government Ombudsman
10th floor, Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4QP
June 2008
Enc:
Statistical data
Note on interpretation of statistics
Leaflet on training courses (with posted copy only)
LOCAL AUTHORITY REPORT - Welwyn Hatfield BC
For the period ending 31/03/2008
Complaints received
Benefits
Housing
Other
Planning &
Public
Transport
Total
by subject area
building
finance
and
control
highways
1
9
8
4
3
1
26
01/04/2007 -
31/03/2008
2006 / 2007
0
9
3
9
0
3
24
2005 / 2006
1
2
4
2
2
0
11
Note: these figures will include complaints that were made prematurely to the Ombudsman and which we referred back to the authority for consideration.
Outside
Premature
Total excl
Decisions
MI reps
LS
M reps
NM reps
No mal
Omb disc
Total
jurisdiction
complaints
premature
01/04/2007 - 31/03/2008
0
5
0
0
8
3
2
10
18
28
2006 / 2007
0
2
0
0
8
5
1
6
16
22
2005 / 2006
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
5
5
10
See attached notes for an explanation of the headings in this table.
Average local authority response times 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008
FIRST ENQUIRIES
Response times
Types of authority
<= 28 days 29 - 35 days > = 36 days
No. of First
Avg no. of days
%
%
%
Enquiries
to respond
District Councils
56.4
24.6
19.1
01/04/2007 - 31/03/2008
Unitary Authorities
41.3
50.0
8.7
8
33.3
Metropolitan Authorities
58.3
30.6
11.1
2006 / 2007
10
31.1
County Councils
47.1
38.2
14.7
London Boroughs
45.5
27.3
27.3
2005 / 2006
5
37.2
National Park Authorities
71.4
28.6
0.0
Printed: 07/05/2008 16:09
