Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about changes to proposals for planning consent for a superstore to the rear of his home, specifically about the relocation of a large sprinkler tank, now sited immediately adjacent to his boundary, and also about the way Fife Council (the Council) dealt with correspondence on the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) delayed or failed to reply to correspondence (upheld);
• (b) failed in their assessment of an initial application and decision on material variations, to demonstrate that contemporary consideration was given to the materiality of the changes and whether further neighbour notification should be carried out (upheld); and
• (c) in their assessment of a second application failed to consider whether a report on environmental issues remained valid, the effect on Mr C's property of the changes, whether the application was properly described and whether the sprinkler tank complied with Council policy and design guidance (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the identified shortcomings in dealing with his correspondence and complaint and for the inadequacies in record-keeping; and
• (ii) assess whether there are in fact any noise problems emanating from the plant buildings, and if so, approach the superstore company.

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

Overview
In October 2008, the complainant (Mrs C) decided to assume responsibility for looking after her niece and nephew. Her complaint concerned the refusal by Midlothian Council (the Council) of her request for financial assistance in the form of kinship care allowance. Mrs C's complaint about that decision was considered but dismissed by the Council's Complaints Review Panel.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's Complaints Review Panel was not provided with adequate information on the children's situation to reach a decision (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) in the light of the circumstances of this case consider whether, when they are acting on behalf of an another social work authority, they provide a clear written statement of the limitations of their role and direct a carer to sources of further information.

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

Overview
The complainant, (Mr C), complained that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had failed to respond reasonably to his enquiries about a statutory notice that had been served on his property. He complained to the Council's Customer Care Team (within the Corporate Contact Centre) that his enquiries were not being responded to. Thereafter he complained that the Customer Care Team had failed to respond to his complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not reasonably respond to Mr C's enquiries about a statutory notice served on his property (upheld); and
• (b) failed to respond to Mr C's complaints about the Edinburgh City Development Department and the Customer Care Team (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide a full apology from the Edinburgh City Development Department to Mr C for failing to appropriately respond to his enquiries about an outstanding statutory notice affecting his property;
• (ii) following consideration of the findings of the external enquiry, report back to the Ombudsman about the measures being put in place in the Edinburgh City Development Department in relation to customer care and in particular in relation to enquiry handling, to ensure a similar situation does not occur;
• (iii) provide a full apology to Mr C for the failures identified regarding the handling of his complaints by the Customer Care Team; and
• (iv) review the Corporate complaints policy, and provide evidence to the Ombudsman that procedures are being adhered to effectively when handling complaints from customers.

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

Overview
The complainants (the Solicitors) brought a complaint to my office on behalf of their clients, the aggrieved (Mrs A) and her son (Mr A). Mrs A raised a number of concerns about a school trip that Mr A attended in February 2009. Mrs A's concerns were subsequently investigated by the Council. There was also an investigation undertaken by the police into an alleged incident on the trip involving a number of pupils, including Mr A, and a report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal.

• (a)  manage and investigate the complaint properly and within the time frame specified (upheld);
• (b) respond adequately to the complaint (upheld);
• (c) provide Mrs A with sight of relevant documents (not upheld); and
• (d)  indicate when their recommendations would be enforced (upheld).

• (i)  should, when preparing risk assessments for off- site activities and education trips, include more detail on the supervision arrangements, in particular, during 'free time' and bed times;
• (ii)  introduce a policy which formalises the action taken at paragraph 16 to deal with situations such as this, involving allegations of a serious nature;
• (iii)  ensure that adequate guidance is given to staff on managing complaints which are high risk, complex or of a sensitive nature and are likely to take longer than the stated timescales; and
• (iv)  when making recommendations in response to a complaint, should state the date by which the recommendation will be implemented.

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) complained about The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s decision to refuse her application for a disabled parking bay outside her home.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to fulfil their statutory duties with regard to parking provision for disabled residents (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their policy for considering applications for disabled parking spaces to take into account the individual circumstances of residents within the CPZ; and
• (ii) reconsider Ms C's application for a disabled parking bay on X Street, taking account of her special circumstances.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) had wrongly advised him of the impact of a transfer of tenancy from his wife (Mrs C) to himself on his Right to Buy discount under the Housing (Scotland) Acts 1987 and 2001. In September 2008, Mr and Mrs C contacted the Council to discuss transfer of tenancy options. A request to assign the tenancy was approved by the Council on 30 September 2008 and the tenancy was transferred to Mr C. Mr C applied to purchase his Council house in October 2008 and, while an offer to sell was initially made under the old Right to Buy scheme, following clarification of Mr C's tenancy commencement date, he was advised that his purchase could only proceed under the modernised Right to Buy.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C was wrongly advised by the Council of the impact of a transfer of tenancy from Mrs C to himself on his Right to Buy discount (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) keep a written record of the advice given when processing Assignation of Tenancy applications;
• (ii) ensure that the review of the Tenancy Sign Up Procedure is completed as a matter of urgency;
• (iii) consults with Mr and Mrs C in order to offer them an opportunity to enter into a joint tenancy or to re-assign the tenancy to Mrs C. In the event that Mrs C then subsequently applies to purchase the property either alone or jointly with Mr C, the Council shall apply to the Scottish Ministers for consent to the sale on the basis of the preserved Right to Buy discount to which Mrs C was entitled; and
• (iv) in the event that the Scottish Ministers do not consent to any subsequent sale on the basis of the 70 percent preserved Right to Buy discount to which Mrs C was originally entitled, should ensure that Mr and Mrs C receive an ex-gratia payment to reflect the terms of the loss they have incurred financially being the difference between the price under Section 63 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 under circumstances where a 70 percent discount would have applied under the preserved Right to Buy provisions and the price under Section 63 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 under the modernised Right to Buy provisions.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C), acting on behalf of a sub-committee of local residents, raised a number of concerns about the consequences for his neighbourhood (the Area) of road traffic regulation changes instituted by the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council), following their decision to develop a light railway (the Tram Link) between North and Central Edinburgh and Edinburgh Airport.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council increased traffic in the Area by the way that they have managed traffic flow, following their decision to develop the Tram Link (not upheld);
• (b) residents of the Area were excluded from meaningful participation in the process (not upheld);
• (c) the Council have not carried out a proper and comprehensive environmental impact study regarding noise, air pollution, safety and continual vehicle passage through the predominantly residential area as a proposed permanent situation (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council repeatedly made misleading statements, both to residents of the Area and to other involved parties; most notably to the parliamentary hearings regarding the effect on the area (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (the Solicitors) brought a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs C). Mr and Mrs C disputed Scottish Borders Council (the Council)'s decision to take into account the value of Mr C's mother (Mrs A)'s former home when calculating her liability for residential costs when she was admitted to a care home. The Solicitors also complained about the Council's complaints handling.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's decision to include the value of the Property in their calculation of Mrs A's financial assessment was administratively flawed (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's complaints handling was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) obtain independent legal advice on Mrs A's case;
• (ii) convene another CRC hearing to reconsider Mrs A's case with reference to independent legal advice;
• (iii) provide evidence of the steps that they have taken to record, track and respond timeously to correspondence from members of the public and their representatives; and
• (iv) review their handling of the Solicitors' initial correspondence and formal complaint. In particular they should review their staff absence procedures and introduce measures to ensure that future staff absences do not unduly impact upon the delivery of service standards set out in the Council's complaints handling procedure.

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

Overview
The complainant, an advocate, (Ms C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of Mrs A about the financial assessment carried out by The Moray Council (the Council) to identify funds which could be taken into account towards the cost of residential care for her late mother, Mrs B.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs A was not told that she required to provide information about closed bank accounts and was then criticised for failing to do so (not upheld);
• (b) Mrs A was not told that she required to tell the Council everything her mother, Mrs B, spent her money on. If she had been told this then she would have done so before the Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) (not upheld); and
• (c) Mrs A considers that had the Council provided sufficient information about what was required in the first place, the financial assessment process would have been much quicker and easier for her (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their process to ensure that a written record is made and retained of discussions with and advice given to an applicant where an application for financial assistance towards the costs for non residential and residential care is made. A copy of the record, together with a copy of the competed financial assessment application form, should also be provided to the applicant;
• (ii) review their process to ensure that a record is made and retained of all subsequent meetings and telephone calls between Council officers and an applicant during the financial assessment process;
• (iii) review their process to ensure that a record is made and retained of meetings and telephone calls between Council officers and members of the public where a complaint has been made about the Council; and
• (iv) review their process to ensure that a copy of the minutes of a CRC hearing is provided to a complainant and/or their representative within a reasonable time.

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

Overview
The complainant, a Citizens Advice advocacy worker (Mr C), raised a number of complaints on behalf of his client (Mrs A) about the financial assessment carried out by East Lothian Council (the Council) in respect of her mother (Mrs B) and the way the Council's Complaints Review Committee (CRC) dealt with the complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there were shortcomings in the information provided to Mrs A by the Council at the time of the initial financial assessment of Mrs B (upheld);
• (b) the CRC failed fully to explain the reasoning behind their decision not to uphold the complaint (upheld);
• (c) the Council dealt with the matter in terms of a blanket policy and failed to consider the case on its own merits (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council acted unreasonably in not agreeing to convene a new CRC hearing to consider a salient piece of information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) in consultation with the Chair and other members of the CRC, revisit their decision with a view to providing a full and adequate explanation based on the merits of Mr C's case; and
• (ii) in consultation with the Chair and other members of the CRC, assess the significance of the minute of the agreement to the merits of Mr C's case.

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