Local Government

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.

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.