Local Government

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Ms C) operate a movable food unit (the Unit) in an area (the Area) where The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) issue street traders' licences. When Mr and Ms C applied to renew their annual street trader's licence, they were told that the street trading policy for the Area had changed and that only temporary licences could be issued. Mr and Ms C complained that the Council had changed the street trading policy without consulting them. They also complained that they had been charged non-domestic rates as well as street trader's licences, contrary to street trading legislation, and that the handling of the temporary licence applications was inadequate. Mr and Ms C were also unhappy about the Council's delay in dealing with their complaint.

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

• (a) the Council changed their policy regarding street traders' licensing in the area where Mr and Ms C operate without consulting them (upheld);
• (b) Mr and Ms C were inappropriately charged for both non-domestic rates and street trader's licences (upheld);
• (c) the handling of the temporary licence applications was inadequate (upheld); and
• (d) the Council delayed unreasonably in dealing with the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that full written consultation is undertaken with those directly affected by any proposed change to street trading policy in future;
• (ii) remind staff involved in drafting reports to Council committees of the importance of ensuring that accurate information is presented;
• (iii) reimburse Mr and Ms C for the cost of the two temporary licence applications and take steps to ensure that information provided to applicants is clear and accurate;
• (iv) ensure that when officers are making a recommendation to the Licensing Sub-Committee to refuse a temporary licence application, the reasons for recommending refusal are clear and consistent;
• (v) ensure that, when a decision is made to refuse a temporary licence application under paragraph 5(3)(d) of Schedule 1 of the 1982 Act, the Council provides an adequate explanation for the 'good reason' which justified the refusal to the applicants;
• (vi) remind staff within the licensing department of the Council's stated timescales for responding to complaints and the importance of keeping the complainant updated if there is to be a delay in responding to a complaint; and
• (vii) apologise to Mr and Ms C for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview
Ms C complained that in 2007 the respite care that was offered by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for her teenage daughter (Miss A), who has complex special needs, did not meet her daughter's assessed needs.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that, in 2007, the respite care offered by the Council did not reasonably meet the assessed needs of Miss A (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s failure to take effective enforcement action against the owners of a neighbouring disused quarry site. In particular, he was concerned that the Council had failed to ensure that the owners of the site had complied with the conditions of a Planning Enforcement Notice, which they issued in 2004.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take effective enforcement action against unauthorised works at a quarry site next to Mr C's home (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) obtain the services of an independent consultant, obtained from a list provided by the Royal Town Planning Institute, to prepare a report within two months with recommendations on the steps which should be taken by the Council to ensure final compliance with the Enforcement Notice. The Council should consider this report at a meeting of the appropriate Committee within one month of receipt and put in hand the measures it considers appropriate to ensure that works are completed as quickly as possible and within a specified timescale;
• (ii) write to all residents neighbouring the site to apologise for their failures to take effective enforcement action in order to protect their amenity; and
• (iii) carry out a full review of enforcement practice within the Council to ensure that similar situations do not arise again. Such a review should consider the relevant planning circulars and advice.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about the level of care he and his family received from Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board). Mr C explained that his seven-year-old son (Child C) has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and that he also has three other children aged five, three and two. Mr C said that the Board had failed to provide a programme of intervention to meet Child C's needs and that this had caused considerable distress for Child C and his family because of the effects of Child C's disability. Mr C considered that, in addition to the Board's own obligations towards Mr C and his family, it was incumbent on the Board to provide appropriate care to address Mr C and his family's deteriorating health, resulting from what he described as North Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s failure to fulfil their duties towards him and his family. Mr C subsequently complained to the Ombudsman's office about the level of service he and his family received from the Council. He said that the Council's social work services had failed to properly assess the needs of Mr C and his family and provide the appropriate support. Mr C advised that the Council had allocated a number of hours support for Child C and had agreed that, as Mr C had been unable to identify a suitable provider of this support, any unused hours could be 'banked', or carried over from one financial year to the next. Mr C said the Council then went back on this decision and that his son lost all his 'banked hours'. Mr C also raised a number of specific complaints about the Council's social work and education services.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints against the Board which have been investigated are that during the period May 2006 to September 2007:

• (a) the Board failed to provide appropriate care to address Mr C and his family's deteriorating health, resulting from the Council's alleged failure to fulfil their duties towards Mr C and his family (not upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to put in place a programme of intervention to meet Child C's needs (not upheld); and
• (c) the Board failed to provide proper care to alleviate the distress caused to Mr C and his family from the effects of his son's disability (not upheld).

The complaints against the Council which have been investigated are that:

• (d) from March 2005 to May 2008, the Council failed to properly assess Mr C and his family's needs for support from social work services and subsequently provide this support, in accordance with procedure (not upheld);
• (e) the Council failed to inform Mr C that from 6 April 2008 Child C would lose his right to all his 'banked hours' (upheld); and
• (f) the Council failed to allocate Child C a new social worker, after the previous one left in December 2007 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) re-instate Child C's unused hours of support for the period 25 October 2005 to 25 April 2008; and
• (ii) take note of both the Ombudsman's Mental Health Adviser (Adviser 1)'s and the Ombudsman's Psychiatric Adviser's comments on multi-agency working in this case, and seek to implement Adviser 1's suggestions at paragraph 128, in particular, the suggestion that stakeholders 'regroup' to re-establish and commit to effective future collaborative working arrangements, including a set of principles upon which future care should be based.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board take note of both the Ombudsman's Mental Health Adviser (Adviser 1)'s and the Ombudsman's Psychiatric Adviser's comments on multi-agency working in this case, and seek to implement Adviser 1's suggestions at paragraph 128, in particular, the suggestion that stakeholders 'regroup' to re-establish and commit to effective future collaborative working arrangements, including a set of principles upon which future care should be based.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by Fife Council (the Council) of applications for a single wind turbine and related proposals near to her home.

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

• (a) in reaching a decision on a request made for a screening opinion (the Screening Opinion) on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in respect of an application for planning consent for the wind turbine (the Application), the Council's planning case officer (Officer 1) failed to have regard to appropriate guidance on EIA procedures and that she made statements to support her view that an EIA was not required, which she later contradicted (not upheld);
• (b) the Council, when presented with massive local opposition to the Application and Mrs C's letter of objection of 28 November 2007, failed to reconsider the need for an EIA (not upheld); and
• (c) the report to committee on the Application failed fully to consider Mrs C's letter of objection and the Council's finalised guidance on wind energy, misrepresented the differences with another current proposal, and contradicted statements made earlier in the Screening Opinion (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) raised a complaint on behalf of her elderly father (Mr A) that the Highland Council (the Council) had failed over a considerable period of time to take appropriate action to require the owner (Mr B) of the property adjoining Mr A's house to rectify problems with his building. Ms C claimed the lack of action was having an injurious effect on Mr A's health and threatened the fabric of his house.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council had failed over a considerable period of time to take appropriate action to require Mr B, the owner of the property adjoining Mr A's house, to rectify problems with his building (no finding).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council continue to monitor closely the property currently owned by Mr B and its effect on Mr A's property, particularly should the current planning consent and building warrant expire.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the service provided to her by Perth and Kinross Council (the Council). These included: data protection issues; the Council's arrangements to uplift and store her personal belongings on her being made homeless; and the way in which the Council dealt with her mainstream housing application. Mrs C was advised to progress any concerns relating to the use of her personal data through the Information Commissioner's Office. The issues in relation to the storage of her goods and her housing application have been investigated by the Ombudsman.

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

• (a) the Council's arrangements to take Mrs C's personal belongings into storage when she was made homeless were inadequate (upheld); and
• (b) there were failings in the Council's administration of Mrs C's mainstream housing application and the assessment of rent arrears (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) advise him of the measures introduced as a result of their review of all homeless processes to ensure that a similar occurrence does not happen in future;
• (ii) share this investigation report with their insurers, so that they may reconsider if any liability attaches to the Council for the loss of Mrs C's property; and
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for the poor service experienced, which led to the loss of her belongings.

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns relating to the issue of a Certificate of Completion by Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for works undertaken to her flat in 2004/2005. She complained that some of the work had not been undertaken properly and that appropriate checks were not undertaken by the Council before they issued a Certificate of Completion. This was issued to the former owner of her flat (Mr F), who had applied for a building warrant for the repairs and work to refurbish the property. Ms C was dissatisfied with the consideration given by the Council to pursue Mr F to undertake the outstanding works, by enforcement or other action.

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

• (a) failed to ensure that grant-aided works were undertaken properly (not upheld);
• (b) failed to carry out appropriate checks before issuing a Certificate of Completion (not upheld);
• (c) failed to provide appropriate advice when a Certificate of Completion was issued (not upheld); and
• (d) failed to take enforcement or other action (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the administration by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) of works instructed in consequence of statutory notices served under section 24(1) of the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Those notices were served on Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) and other owners in their tenement building in 2001 and 2002. Mr and Mrs C decided to sell their flat in 2003. Mr C sought to establish the possible cost of the works necessitated by the statutory notices before concluding a sale. From information he obtained in 2003, Mr C anticipated that their share of the projected costs would be of the order of £2,800, when their share of the outcome costs was over £17,000. Mr C believed that the Council failed properly to administer the works to Mr and Mrs C's considerable financial disadvantage.

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

• (a) the Council too broadly defined the works required, instructed significantly different work than set out in the notices, included extensive renewal and rebuilding instead of repair and limited replacement, and allowed additional work of betterment/improvement (partially upheld); and
• (b) Council officers sought to mislead Mr C by maintaining that renewals or replacements constituted general repair work (not upheld).
   

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the extent that they were responsible for the delays and increase in contract price and commute part of their administration charge.

The Council have accepted the recommendation to commute part of the administration charge and had authorised his staff to take this to a suitable conclusion.

Overview
Mr C complained on behalf of his son Child A. Child A was being home-educated. Mr C had asked Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) about access to exams. After discussion, it was agreed Child A could attend the nearest school (School X) for specific classes so that he could sit exams in those subjects at the end of the school year. Child A attended school but teaching staff objected. Child A was sent home. Mr C complained to the Council and was unhappy with the delay in their response and the response itself.

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

• (a) failed to honour a commitment to admit Child A to a class at School X (upheld);
• (b) acted unreasonably in refusing to consider enrolling Child A in individual classes (upheld); and
• (c) handled a complaint about these matters inadequately (upheld).
   

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that all future responses to the Ombudsman are based on a review of the evidence available;
• (ii) put in place a policy and guidance for dealing with requests for support for home-educated children. As part of the process of creating the policy, they should consult with local teachers; the parents of home-educated children, children themselves and other local authorities. They should ensure that the policy is in line not only with the legislation but the guidance issued by the Scottish Government;
• (iii) remind all staff of the need to ensure that statements about decisions made by the Council are evidence-based and that, where advice is sought in coming to a decision, this is appropriately noted;
• (iv) undertake an audit of their complaints handling processes and procedures. This audit should be undertaken within three months of this report and be reported at quarterly intervals over the next 12 months (15 months in total) to the Ombudsman. The audit should demonstrate significant improvement over this time and show that the recommendations made in this and previous reports about complaint handling have been implemented;
• (v) ensure investigations of complaints are evidence-based; and
• (vi) apologise to Mr C and Child A separately and in full for the failings identified in this report including the events of 20 August 2007 and the distress caused.

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