Local Government

Overview
The complainants, a firm of solicitors (Firm C), raised a number of concerns on behalf of its clients, a housing developer (Firm A), about the handling by Scottish Borders Council (the Council) of a planning application submitted for the development of a new secondary school.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not observe appropriate planning procedures with regard to the new school contained in the application and, in particular, to notify interested parties of significant changes (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise for the failings identified.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning application for the erection of a two-storey extension at her neighbour's property.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to follow due process prior to planning permission being granted for the erection of a two-storey extension at Mrs C's neighbour's property (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) refer the application to committee to consider whether it would be appropriate to make a revocation order, in terms of the use and development of the land;
• (ii) review the email system currently in place in the planning team to ensure that overloading of inboxes does not result in lost emails on planning applications;
• (iii) feed back my decision on this case to the planning team; and
• (iv) apologise to Mrs C for failing to investigate her complaint properly and for failing to ensure that a local Councillor's request was processed correctly.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) bought a recently constructed property in a small rural development. He and other residents experienced a problem with low water pressure in the water supply to their homes. He considered that to be as a result of South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) not taking appropriate action when the developer informed them of a change in source of the water supply a year after planning consent was granted.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council, in dealing with the planning application for the development, failed to ensure that the developer provided an adequate water supply to the site (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise for their failure to take appropriate action in respect of the letter of 4 September 2006 from the developer; and
• (ii) consider, in the light of the circumstances detailed in this report, whether they should contribute to the costs incurred in securing a satisfactory water supply.

Overview
The complainants, a firm of solicitors (Firm C), brought a complaint to my office on behalf of a number of clients. The complaint concerned the way in which Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) had reached its decision to identify a particular location as suitable for inclusion in the list of Small Building Groups suitable for limited housing development.

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

• (a) failed to act in a consistent and fair manner in assessing the criteria for identifying suitable locations (upheld);
• (b) failed to produce adequate reasoned justification for moving a location from the unsuitable list to the suitable list and, in doing so, ignored advice in the committee reports (upheld);
• (c) did not adhere to the governance advice provided by Council officers (not upheld);
• (d) failed to adequately advise the public of the proposed changes (not upheld);
• (e) failed to follow the established procedure of considering each location on its merits in favour of a 'block group' consideration (not upheld); and
• (f) failed to handle the complaint adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the manner in which the case was handled to ensure public confidence in public administration and the planning system; and
• (ii) issue a full and clear apology to Firm C for the failings identified in the handling of the complaint.

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

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.