Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about the failure of Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) to deal satisfactorily with nearby flooding problems and to repair the damage caused to the adopted road which serves his home.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have delayed unduly in taking action to reduce flood risk to Mr C's property and to effect repairs on the adopted road (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) consider whether there is a need, following the identification of projects in their capital plan, to provide periodic updates on their website of progress in implementation;
• (ii) provide a suitable expression of regret to Mr and Mrs C for the worry and concern which they have endured through the delay in implementing the project; and
• (iii) as a matter of urgency, ensure that the works identified under the project are carried out without further delay.

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

Overview
The complainant, a firm of solicitors (Firm C), complained on behalf of their clients about how its complaint had been dealt with at a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (CRC) held by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the CRC who considered the complaint did not properly explain their decision by reference to the merits of the case (upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) consults with the Chair and other members of the CRC with a view to the CRC producing an adequate and reasoned explanation for their decision based on the merits of Firm C's case.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns relating to East Renfrewshire Council (the Council)'s decision to install a multi use games area (MUGA) in the grounds of a primary school (the School) adjacent to his flat and their subsequent decision that the gates remain open at all times providing unrestricted community use, with consequent detriment to his amenity.

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

• (a) the Council failed to consult residents before installing the MUGA at the School in March 2007 (not upheld);
• (b) the Council ignored a more suitable site (not upheld);
• (c) the Council ignored Mr C's reasonable requests that the gates of the MUGA be locked after supervised activities had ended in the early evening (not upheld);
• (d) the Council's decision in May 2008 to leave the gates open permanently was taken without consulting with or hearing from residents most directly affected (upheld);
• (e) the Council ignored Mr C's requests after May 2008, that respite be provided by closing the gates all day on Sundays (not upheld); and
• (f) the Council delayed in informing Mr C of his entitlement to make a formal complaint and, if dissatisfied with the way it was dealt with, to take his complaint to the SPSO (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) given the change to community use of the site, now consult with adjacent residents on the change and the current 'open gate' access to the MUGA and, following this, reconsider the 'open gate' policy, taking into account the views expressed. If the 'open gate' policy continues, the matter should also be raised with the Planning Department to consider whether there has been a material change of use and, if so, whether it constitutes a bad neighbour development; and
• (ii) advise both the SPSO and Mr C of the outcome.

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

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) intended to install solar panels on the roof of their home, in a conservation area in a town in East Lothian, and arranged a meeting at the Planning Service offices of East Lothian Council (the Council). They complained about the quality of advice given to them and about the way their subsequent complaint was handled.

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

• (a) there was a failure at a pre-application meeting to give appropriate advice (not upheld); and
• (b) there were failures in the handling of the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) assess the need to supplement internal guidance, with particular regard to the handling of requests for pre-application advice about the proposed installation of microgeneration equipment in conservation areas; and
• (ii) take steps to ensure that the outcome of pre-application meetings and advice are properly recorded.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) failed to investigate properly his complaint that he had been unfairly banned from a leisure facility, following an incident involving his child and another member and that member's child in 2008. Mr C stated that he had intervened because his child was being bullied. He was aggrieved at the decision taken to ban him and did not consider that his complaint about this incident was investigated properly. He was also aggrieved because it took account of a similar incident in 2007 when he had received a written warning from the Council. Mr C also complained that, following his allegations, the Council had failed to satisfy themselves properly that they had adequate child protection measures in place.

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

• (a) the Council failed to investigate properly Mr C's complaint that he had been unfairly banned from a leisure facility (upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to satisfy themselves properly that they have adequate child protection measures in place (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) take appropriate action to ensure that the investigation into a complaint will be conducted properly and efficiently, with due regard to confidentiality;
• (ii) formally apologise to Mr C for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint; and
• (iii) issue advice to their staff that non-adherence to good practice guidance, without reasonable explanation, is not an acceptable practice and may result in a critical finding by the Ombudsman.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C), the owner of a tenement flat, raised concerns about the handling of statutory notices issued by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) under the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991 and about financial advice and assistance he received.

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

• (a) the Council failed to give Mr C correct and sufficient advice regarding obtaining finance for his share of the costs of works instructed under statutory notices (not upheld); and
• (b) the actions of the Council and their agents (the Agents), with regard to the apportionment of costs, were inconsistent (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) revisit, and take steps to seek to prevent, the situation where the Agents sent out invoices in April 2008 on the basis of an erroneous list of owners;
• (ii) reimburse Mr C for any additional costs he incurred in consequence of the Agents' initial erroneous invoice; and
• (iii) consider formally whether it is appropriate for them to seek recovery of the costs of works on the basis of title and, if they are mindful to do so, inform Mr C accordingly in order that he can seek appropriate legal advice on his own options.

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

Overview
The complaint centres on a property and campsite (the Property) situated in a country park (the Park) which is leased from Midlothian Council (the Council) by a young people's organisation (the Organisation). The Property, which lies approximately 800 metres from the Park main entrance, is accessed by a driveway through the Park. The Property is used mostly at weekends and has a small car park adjacent to it. Following a risk assessment conducted on 22 July 2008, the Council informed the Organisation that, due to complaints having been received, they would be enforcing an earlier amendment to the lease. This meant the Organisation would no longer be allowed vehicular use of the driveway. The Organisation's lease was amended again at a later date to allow them vehicular access on Friday evenings when children were being dropped off by parents/carers, but not on Sunday afternoons when they were being collected. The complaint was brought by a spokesperson for the Organisation, referred to as Mrs C. She complained about the Council's handling of the Organisation's complaints, representations and proposed solutions following the restrictions to their vehicular access.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that following an amendment to the Organisation's lease in November 2007, the Council's administrative handling of their proposed solutions, representations and subsequent complaints was poor (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) give the Organisation appropriate consideration in any future decisions concerning the Park and balance their particular needs with the needs of other park users;
• (ii) record complaints received about any incidents in the Park involving vehicles and pedestrians; and
• (iii) provide guidance to the Organisation on how they can improve their control of the use of the driveway.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that he had received misleading pre-planning application advice from The Highland Council (the Council). Mr C is aggrieved that he spent unnecessary time and substantial costs in preparing and submitting planning applications as a direct result of the advice from the Council.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to deal adequately with the pre-planning application enquiry (upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) inform him when the caveat has been introduced and publicised on their website.

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

Overview
In 1995 the complainant (Mr C) obtained planning permission to build a new house on his land. Planning permission was granted subject to the condition that the existing property on the land (a croft house), would revert to use as a byre, with no use as a dwelling taking place after construction of the new house was completed. Mr C says that as a result of this condition he carried out work to convert the croft house to a byre. Thereafter, in October 2004 Mr C applied for planning permission to convert the byre back to a dwelling house. Permission was refused. He applied again in June 2005 when outline planning consent was granted, subject to conditions including significant access improvements. Mr C considered the planning conditions to be onerous, therefore, he decided to sell the building with outline planning consent to upgrade to a dwelling. He considered that the requirement to meet the planning conditions was reflected in the sale price.

When the new owners moved into and commenced work on the property, it became obvious to Mr C that they were not complying with the planning conditions as set in June 2005. Mr C contacted the Council regarding this, however, he was advised that the works he had previously carried out to convert the former croft house to a byre were not sufficient for the Council as planning authority to accept that the use of the building as a house had ceased. Mr C was also advised that under the Building Regulations the building was assessed as being a house, and had never been converted to byre status. Therefore, the new owners were not required to meet the planning conditions set in the outline planning permission of June 2005. In July 2008 Mr C formally complained to the Council that the house had been occupied without compliance with the 2005 conditions, however, at the conclusion of the Council's investigation he remained unhappy with the outcome. In April 2009, he asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's handling of the planning situation, in relation to the building adjacent to Mr C's property, was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) consider how best to meet the requirements of the planning conditions set in June 2005 where the need remains; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for the inadequate manner in which the planning considerations were handled.

Overview
A number of residents (54) from the South Ayrshire Council (the Council) area raised complaints about the Council's decision to close various facilities (Girvan Swimming Pool, Tarbolton and Dailly Activity Centres, Dalmilling Golf Course, The Gaiety Theatre, Pets' Corner, Public Toilets and Maybole and Troon Registration Offices) without consultation with the public.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to consult the public, both before and after a decision was taken to close a public facility or centre, in accordance with the Council's practice and statutory procedures (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that, in the interests of good practice, the Council ensure that their strategy to communicate and engage with the community incorporates clear directives in relation to consistency in communication and engagement where it is proposed to close a Council facility or centre.

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