South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained of misleading advice given to him and his ex-wife (Mrs A) on 1 June 2004 by a finance officer of The Highland Council (the Council) which he said led Mrs A to regard Mr C's house as her main residence and to sell her house  to their financial detriment.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which I have investigated is that a council finance officer at an interview in Mr C's home on 1 June 2004 gave Mr C and Mrs A misinformation which led Mrs A to sell her home at a price less than she expected and for Mrs A, Mr C and their adult son (Mr B) to sustain financial loss (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

Although not upholding the complaint, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the circumstances of the complaint to establish whether in similar circumstances an earlier conclusion could be reached on the question of residence for benefit purposes and whether there were additional steps they could take to help ensure that claimants are fully advised about regulations and entitlement.

The Council have accepted the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (, Mr C), complained about the way in which South Ayrshire Council (the Council) handled his planning application and alleged that it failed to receive fair and proper consideration.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C's planning application failed to receive fair and proper consideration (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that in the future the Council bear in mind the possible consequences to planning applicants from any changes they may make in their internal policy and, that they seek to keep them (or their agents) advised.

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

Overview

The complainant Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the treatment her daughter (Miss C) received from a GP (the GP) at her medical practice during 2005 and that the GP failed to diagnose that she was suffering from pneumonia.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that during consultations in 2005 the GP failed to diagnose that Miss C was suffering from pneumonia (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make but asks that the GP reflect on the comments relating to the recording of relevant information at consultations.

Overview

Mr C complained about the sale of land owned by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) and on which he had a loom shed (the Shed).  Mr C considered there was no proper consultation surrounding the sale.  He was also unhappy that he was not given the opportunity to purchase the land and was served with a notice to demolish the Shed.  In addition, Mr C said that he had found it difficult to have his complaints considered by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the sale of the land was not carried out appropriately by the Council (partially upheld);
• (b)  Mr C should not have been served with the notice to demolish the Shed (not upheld); and
• (c)  Mr C's complaints were not handled adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for the fact that he was wrongly informed that a consultation had taken place and he had been excluded from this;
• (ii)  review the Council's procedures about land sales with reference to notification and consultation;
• (iii)  clarify in their guidance to staff on their complaints procedure that complainants need to be kept informed of the process and that formal complaints should always be dealt with through the complaints process; and
• (iv)  apologise to Mr C for the poor handling of his complaint.

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

Overview

The complaint was made by Mr C on behalf of his adult daughter (Ms C).  Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the handling by Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) of Ms C's applications for council tax benefit and housing benefit.  The Council accepted that there had been faults in the way they handled Mr C's complaint and the sum of £500 was accepted by him.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  provided Ms C with a receipt that her applications for council tax benefit and housing benefit were properly documented but later asked for additional information (not upheld);
• (b)  subsequently wrongly determined Ms C's applications stating that she had a nil entitlement because she had not completed the requisite forms (no finding); and
• (c)  delayed unduly in responding to Mr C's letter of complaint of 14 June 2005 to the Chief Executive (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman notes that the sum of £500 has been offered and accepted by Mr C in respect of the delay in handling the formal complaint.  She accepts the personal apology tendered to herself and notes that an explanation and apology were given direct to Mr C.  Finally she also notes the steps taken by the Council to avoid re-occurrence of their initial misunderstanding which happened in this case.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about North Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning matter relating to a site adjacent to his property which had been the subject of a number of planning proposals.  He was aggrieved because the contractor carried out unauthorised works and he alleged that the Council delayed in taking enforcement action.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  delayed in taking action against the contractor (upheld); and
• (b)  delayed in taking action following the decision to serve an enforcement notice (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for failing to deal efficiently with his complaints; and
• (ii)  produce internal guidance on good practice in Planning Enforcement which should include advice for officers on the need to maintain properly documented records of their investigation of each case.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have confirmed that arrangements have been made to act on them.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was aggrieved at East Lothian Council (the Council)'s decision to require her to pay a £69 access charge in order to allow her gas appliances to receive an annual check.  She complained that the new procedure was not explained sufficiently to tenants and that the Council were unreasonable in requiring her to pay this given that she had made attempts to provide access.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council were unreasonable in requiring her to pay an access charge of £69 (not upheld); and
• (b)        the Council failed to explain sufficiently the new system to tenants (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)         in the particular circumstances which applied to Ms C, the Council reconsider their demand that she pay the £69 access charge; and
• (ii)        in this case, as there appeared to be some confusion about access visits and requests for access visits, the Ombudsman suggests that the Council review the terms of their standard letters and those of British Gas.

The Council have declined to accept the Ombudsman's recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling of applications for planning permission and conservation area consent made to East Lothian Council (the Council) for a housing development in his village.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a)        policy statements in the Structure Plan and Local Plan and their obligations under sections 59 and 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) in considering and determining the applications (not upheld); and
• (b)        the views of objectors and did not refer the matter to the Council's Planning Committee for determination (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs D) raised a number of concerns about the handling of applications for planning permission and conservation area consent made to East Lothian Council (the Council) for a housing development in their village.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a)        policy statements in the Structure Plan and Local Plan and their obligations under sections 59 and 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) in considering and determining the applications (not upheld); and
• (b)        the views of objectors and did not refer the matter to the Council's Planning Committee for determination (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, alleged that between August and December 2005, his painful shoulder was not diagnosed or treated properly.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C's painful shoulder was not diagnosed or treated properly (not upheld)

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.