West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant accepted that he signed for the tenancy of a flat but said he did not take up occupancy.  He was aggrieved six and a half years later when Inverclyde Council (the Council) informed him that there was outstanding council tax owed by him on the property and arrears of rent.  The investigation did not uncover maladministration or service failure by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Mr C that I investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed properly to investigate Mr C's contention that he had terminated his acceptance of the tenancy before moving in (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council wrongly pursued Mr C in late 2005 for outstanding council tax and rent arrears dating back to 1999/2000 (not upheld); and
• (c)  the Council took action to arrest his bank account when he understood them to be still investigating matters (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) felt the behaviour of a member of the Parole Board (Officer 1) was inappropriate as he felt that Officer 1 acted as an advocate for his release, which was not the role to be assumed by Officer 1.  Mr C also complained that inaccurate minutes had been provided to the Parole Board (the Board) Review when considering his case and this adversely affected the decision reached by the Board.  Furthermore, the complainant felt the Board should have re-convened a new review due to the inaccuracies in the minutes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the manner in which Officer 1 conducted the interview, acting as an advocate for Mr C’s release when in fact this was not her role (not upheld);
• (b)  incorrect information recorded on minutes and the adverse effect this had on the Parole Board’s decision on the review of Mr C’s case (not upheld), and;
• (c)  the decision not to re-convene a new review panel given the inaccuracies in the minutes (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns over the handling of his stepson's application for Housing and Council Tax Benefit. Issues relating to the subsequent handling of the complaint by The City of Edinburgh Council were also raised as complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  adequacy of the explanation by Council staff for the failure to respond to the complaint (not upheld);
• (b)  adequacy of explanation by staff regarding failure to process Request for Review (not upheld);
• (c)  the investigation of the complaint (not upheld); and
• (d)  contradictory nature of information provided regarding Housing Benefit application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the standard of classroom accommodation in his daughter's Primary School and the way those complaints had been dealt with by the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  the Council's alleged failure to address seven concerns first identified by Mr C in an email of 6 September 2004 within a reasonable timescale (partially upheld); and
• (b)  promises of action to be taken given in correspondence were either delayed or not implemented at all (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council review their complaints handling procedures for complaints concerning their services to children and young people.

The Council responded that the Director of Children and Families had instructed a major review of the Department's complaints handling procedures.

Overview

This investigation regards a complaint from the Secretary (Mr C) of a voluntary association (the Association) about the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s handling of the Association's objections to applications which affected the setting of a Grade A listed building.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  alleged failure to consider the Association's objections (partially upheld); and
• (b)  alleged failure to refer the applications to Scottish Ministers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Council accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation that the Council apologise to Mr C for their failure adequately to articulate the Association's objections.  They also informed her of changes they had introduced to the format of committee reports on planning applications.

Overview

The complainants, the parents of a young daughter, raised a number of issues about her pre-school education and about how their complaints about these issues had been handled by the City of Edinburgh Council.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not properly handle Mr C and Ms C's complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i)  apologise for failing to handle the complaints properly;
• (ii)  review the implementation of their complaints procedure to ensure that complaints are fully considered locally unless there are exceptional circumstances; and
• (iii)  take steps to ensure that they clarify to complainants when the local process is complete.

The Council responded that the Director of Children and Families accepted that there were failings and that they were prepared to apologise.  The Director confirmed that he had instructed a major review of his Department's complaints handling procedures.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns that Lothian NHS Board (the Board) refused to carry out a reversal of his vasectomy.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Board refused to carry out a reversal of Mr C’s vasectomy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

The complainant (Miss C) raised concerns that her mother had received inadequate care and treatment at her GP practice (the Practice) between 20 January 2000 and 26 September 2000. Miss C was also concerned about the length of time taken by the Practice to respond to her complaint.

The complaint concerned Renfrewshire Council's (the Council) recovery of alleged overpayment of Housing Benefit payments.

The complainant (Mr C) sought permission from Bridgewater Housing Association (the Association) to remove a bollard erected on a landscaped area at the rear of his home and to obtain a right of access or wayleave in order that he could park his car in his rear garden. Mr C's requests were considered but refused on policy grounds. The investigation found no evidence of maladministration or service failure.