Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

Messrs C (the Complainants), the directors of a building company, complained about the way in which Falkirk Council (the Council) handled their request for timber decking to be laid as a Non Material Variation (NMV) to planning permission.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to deal with the Complainants' verbal request that decking be considered as a NMV to planning permission (upheld);
• (b) a formal application for decking to be considered as a NMV failed to receive a timely response (upheld); and
• (c) the Council failed to hold proper file notes (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) emphasise to staff the importance of acknowledging documentation sent to them. Also, that if in the process of consideration decisions are taken about how matters are being handled, these are also shared with the complainant;
• (ii) make the Complainants a fulsome apology for their oversights with regard to the complaint and their failure to deal with the application in a timely manner; and
• (iii) emphasise to staff the importance of properly recording meetings, including the date of the meeting, any decision(s) reached, the names of those involved, the name of the person recording the note and the date the note was written. Thereafter, ensure that the note is correctly placed in the file.

Unfortunately, the Council have declined to accept the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) handled a complaint she made involving her elderly mother (Mrs A).

Specific complains and conclusions

The complaints against the Council which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Review Sub-Committee was not fully aware of the terms of her complaint and hence could not make a proper decision (not upheld);
• (b) the outcome of the Hearing was censored (not upheld); and
• (c) the outcome of the Hearing was unclear (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, in order to avoid dubiety, when the Council report their findings with regard to Review Sub-Committee hearings, care is taken to ensure that each identified head of complaint is specifically addressed and responded to.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns concerning an application for planning consent made by his neighbour to Falkirk Council (the Council) for formation of a driveway and the erection of a boundary fence on land which had previously been an area of open space traversed on its perimeter by a footpath.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  in considering his neighbour's application did not have proper regard to Mr C's objections (not upheld);
• (b)  did not have proper regard to central government advice in the form of Planning Advice Note 46 on planning and crime prevention (not upheld); and
• (c)  did not properly consider Mr C's requests that they close the footpath, or assist with heightening his boundary wall, or erect a high fence abutting his wall (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although not upholding the complaint the Ombudsman recommends that the Council consider whether it can use powers contained in the Antisocial Behaviour etc Act 2004 to address the problems of vandalism, graffiti and antisocial behaviour which Mr C is experiencing.

The Council accepted with qualification the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the care and treatment given to his late father (Mr A) during a consultation with a GP (GP 1) at a medical practice (the Practice) on 5 April 2005, as Mr A died approximately one hour after the consultation.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that GP 1 should have recognised that Mr A was suffering from coronary heart disease, realised the severity of his medical condition and taken appropriate action (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised concerns that Scottish Enterprise Tayside (SET) failed to manage the installation of a computerised financial management system (FMS) and that they and Scottish Enterprise (SE) did not handle his subsequent complaints appropriately.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints that have been investigated are that:

• (a) SET failed to properly manage the installation of a computerised FMS (not upheld); and
• (b) SET and SE failed to properly handle subsequent complaints to them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that there had been unacceptable delays by Forth Valley NHS Board (the Board) in arranging follow up for her husband (Mr C) and a consequent failure to provide any treatment for him following his diagnosis of cancer.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board:

• (a)  did not arrange timely follow-up to Mr C (upheld); and
• (b)  did not provide Mr C with treatment following his diagnosis of cancer (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

In light of the action taken by the Board the Ombudsman recommends that the Board make a written apology to Mrs C for the delays in arranging the follow-up appointment and requests that they send a copy of the finalised policy on Patient Access to this office.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C), complaining on behalf of an elderly couple (Mr and Mrs A), raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s alleged failure to take appropriate and timely enforcement action to remove unauthorised air conditioning units that had been erected directly outside Mr and Mrs A's window.  Ms C was concerned about the noise produced by the units and their impact on visual amenity.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to take timely enforcement action against the developer after complaints were first raised in October 2004 (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to take enforcement action after the East Area Development Committee (the Development Committee) granted enforcement powers on 27 September 2005 (not upheld);
• (c)  failed to inform the complainant and the aggrieved that the original retrospective planning application had been withdrawn (not upheld);
• (d)  failed to serve an enforcement notice in a timely fashion after the Development Committee decided to take enforcement action in June 2006 (not upheld); and
• (e)  failed to carry out the decision of the Development Committee that the owners of the site (the Developers) should have only 28 days to appeal as they gave the Developers three additional days (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  put measures in place to ensure that, when complaints are received about alleged unauthorised developments or when requests for enforcement action are received, complainants are provided with an explanation of the Council's duties in relation to enforcement and of the options generally available to deal with unauthorised development; and
• (ii)  should ensure that, where possible and appropriate, complainants' expectations are managed with regard to likely outcomes and timescales and are kept up to date with significant developments.

The Council have provided me with a copy of a new Planning Enforcement Charter, which adequately addresses the issues raised in my recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that Clackmannanshire Council (Council 1) failed to continue Free Personal Care (FPC) payments for her aunt (Miss A) following her move to a new residential home (Care Home 2) in Fife.  Mrs C also complained that Council 1 adopted a very aggressive and bullying attitude to family members when they had requested that Miss A be moved to residential care nearer to her family (in Fife).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Council 1 failed to provide Free Personal Care payments for Miss A following her move to Fife (not upheld); and
• (b)  Council 1 failed to properly administer arrangements for Miss A's move (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1 and Fife Council (Council 2), as a matter of urgency, prepare and submit an appeal for determination of the ordinary residence of Miss A by the Scottish Ministers in terms of sec 28 of Circular No. SWSG 1/96.  Following such a determination appropriate payments should be made to Miss A and (if necessary) Council 2 so that all parties are returned to the position they should have been in from 22 December 2005.  The appropriate Council should then take ongoing responsibility for Miss A's FPC payments.

Council 1 and Council 2 have both accepted this recommendation and will take the necessary steps to request a review by the Scottish Ministers.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns against Fife Council Social Work Department (the Council) that they refused to pay transportation costs of Home Care staff to attend his mother-in-law (Ms D), at the property Mr C specifically leased for Ms D, when she was discharged from hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council acted incorrectly when they advised Mr C he had to pay privately for the transportation costs incurred by the Home Care staff in attending to Ms D (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council's decision not to pay transportation costs resulted in an impasse that meant no home care was provided for Ms D over a considerable period (not upheld); and
• (c)  the Council refused to allow their carers to attend the elderly who live in off-main-road accessed accommodation, due to the possibility of vehicle damage occurring (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

A complaint was referred to us from a Member of the Scottish Parliament (the MSP) on behalf of his constituents (Mr and Mrs C) about the way their application for special case consideration for housing transfer had been handled by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  lost an earlier transfer application from Mr and Mrs C (no finding);
• (b)  delayed unduly in putting Mr and Mrs C's request for special case consideration before the appropriate committee (upheld);
• (c)  made an inappropriate offer of re-housing after Mr and Mrs C were granted special case consideration (not upheld); and
• (d)  unfairly removed their special case status for refusing that offer (not upheld)

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the delay identified in paragraph 33; and
• (ii)  should take steps to review their record-keeping with regard to special case consideration to avoid recurrence.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.