Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

Mr C complained that the Council did not correctly follow their own Roads Development Guide in determining the appropriate sightlines required for a junction near his home.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not correctly follow their own Roads Development Guide (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council clarify in the Guide that they can relax the standards to reflect specific local conditions.

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

Overview

The complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman by a Member of the Scottish Parliament (the MSP) on behalf of the complainant (Mr C) on 19 April 2006.  Mr C raised concerns about North Lanarkshire Council's (the Council) disposal to a charitable trust (the Trust) by means of excambion (exchange) of land (the Yard) on which his lock-up garage is located.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to inform Mr C and his neighbours about the transfer of ownership (upheld); and
• (b)  Mr C and other users of the Yard were not given the opportunity to purchase or to lease the Yard with access rights (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr C and his neighbours for not informing them directly of the change in ownership.

The Council confirmed that they accepted that recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns that Fife Council (the Council) had not produced a finalised Draft Local Plan within the stated timescale and that they had failed to alter the wording of the online Draft Local Plan to give a true picture of the planning proposals.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to produce a finalised Draft Local Plan within the stated timescale (not upheld); and
• (b)  failed to alter the wording of the online Draft Local Plan to give a true picture of the planning proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) handled the inspection of nursery premises owned by her.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  it was inappropriate for the inspection and subsequent report to have been carried out by officers against whom Ms C had complained (not upheld);
• (b)  criticisms levelled against Ms C's establishment in the inspection report were not put into context (not upheld); and
• (c)  the inspection was not carried out in accordance with the Care Commission's procedures (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, in order to avoid confusion, when making recommendations to service providers the Care Commission should ensure that they are clear, specific and measurable.

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

Overview

The complainants raised a number of concerns relating to the cremation of their baby (Baby C) and the subsequent handling and investigation of their complaint by Forth Valley NHS Board (the Board).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board:

• (a)  denied the complainants the opportunity to attend Baby C's cremation (upheld);
• (b)  failed to provide adequate evidence that Baby C was cremated entire (upheld);
• (c)  failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the complaint (upheld); and
• (d)  treated the complainants with disregard for their emotional state (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman notes that the Board and Mr and Mrs C have entered into discussion regarding appropriate alternative redress and I am satisfied with this approach.  Given the sensitivity and nature of this case, I have decided that the final redress arrangements should remain private to both parties.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the allocation of land between her tenancy and that of her adjacent neighbours (Mr and Mrs Z) who had purchased their council house in 1992 and at the erection of a fence by the Council in early 2006 which, she stated, had created difficulties for her in presenting her domestic refuse bin for uplift.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        neither the Council nor their predecessor informed Mrs C or her ex-husband of the land conveyed in 1992 to Mr and Mrs Z (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not inform Mrs C beforehand that they intended to erect a fence at the gable of her home (no finding);
• (c)        the Council's Area Housing Manager failed to keep an undertaking to get back to Mrs C after consulting with the Council's Cartographic Services (upheld); and
• (d)        the Council had not responded to the concern Mrs C had expressed about difficulties in presenting her domestic refuse for uplift (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council issue an appropriate letter of apology to Mrs C for their failure to get back to her on (c).

 The Council have accepted that recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the allocation of land between her tenancy and that of her adjacent neighbours (Mr and Mrs Z) who had purchased their council house in 1992 and at the erection of a fence by the Council in early 2006 which, she stated, had created difficulties for her in presenting her domestic refuse bin for uplift.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        neither the Council nor their predecessor informed Mrs C or her ex-husband of the land conveyed in 1992 to Mr and Mrs Z (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not inform Mrs C beforehand that they intended to erect a fence at the gable of her home (no finding);
• (c)        the Council's Area Housing Manager failed to keep an undertaking to get back to Mrs C after consulting with the Council's Cartographic Services (upheld); and
• (d)        the Council had not responded to the concern Mrs C had expressed about difficulties in presenting her domestic refuse for uplift (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council issue an appropriate letter of apology to Mrs C for their failure to get back to her on (c).

 The Council have accepted that recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the handling by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for a site adjacent to his home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council did not:

• (a)        have proper regard to site levels in the development (not upheld);
• (b)        ensure that appropriate plans were made available to enable neighbours properly to gauge the effect of the proposed development on their privacy (not upheld); and
• (c)        insist that the play area for the development was incorporated within the development rather than adjacent to existing housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant Ms C raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s response to the presence of a group of travellers who had set up camp near her business.  Ms C said that the Council's contractors had left the gate open which had allowed the travellers to gain access to the site.  Ms C further complained about the way that the Council handled her complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council failed to act in accordance with their policies (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council's contractors left the gate open which allowed the travellers to gain access to the site (no finding); and
• (c)        the Council failed to handle Ms C's complaints in a reasonable manner (not upheld). 

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

A MSP (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the referral process that her constituent (Mr A) had been through after he was diagnosed with cancer.  Specifically, she raised concerns that Mr A's GP Practice (the Practice) had failed to identify that Mr A had not been informed of his referral to Oncology and that Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board) failed to properly administer Mr A's referral and follow-up when he failed to attend the appointment.  Mr A died during the course of this complaint and his wife (Mrs A) continued to pursue the complaint on his behalf.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Board failed to properly administer Mr A's referral to the Medical Oncology Unit and to follow-up when Mr A did not attend his appointment (upheld);
• (b)       the Board did not respond appropriately to Mr A's complaint about their failings (upheld); and
• (c)       the Practice failed to identify that Mr A was not aware of his referral to the Medical Oncology Unit (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)        apologise to Mr A's family for their failure to properly administer his referral; and
• (ii)       confirm to her that they have gained assurance that the new referral system functions properly.

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