Local Government

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.

Overview
Mr and Mrs C, and Mr and Mrs D (the Complainants) are two sets of parents who raised a number of concerns about a school trip to France that their daughters (Miss C and Miss D) had attended in October 2007. Their concerns were subsequently investigated by the secondary school (the School) and North Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

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

• (a) the planning/management of the trip was inadequate (upheld);
• (b) the investigation into an incident on the trip was inadequate in that the School asked students to complete a questionnaire without involving or informing parents; a senior male teacher interviewed female students about sensitive issues; the Head Teacher made unsubstantiated allegations about some of the students and some of them consider that they have been victimised; the matter should have been referred to the police or the other local authority involved; and parents were not kept informed of the progress of the investigation (partially upheld); and
• (c) the Council should have offered counselling to the students (no finding).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that the revised draft procedures on excursions and outdoor activities are finalised urgently;
• (ii) ensure that the new procedures contain adequate guidance on agreeing and discussing expected standards of behaviour with parents;
• (iii) consider how they can improve the procedures for notifying parents promptly of changes in the arrangements for school trips and excursions;
• (iv) issue an apology to the Complainants for the failings identified in relation to the investigation into the matter; and
• (v) take steps to ensure that complainants are kept informed whilst an investigation into a complaint is ongoing.

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

Overview
The complaint was made by a Primary School Council (the School Council) on behalf of the aggrieved, Mrs C, who is a parent of two children who attend a primary school (School 1) which is due to be closed in 2010, on completion of a new school (School 2) which is being built in its place. Through the School Council, Mrs C complained that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) disregarded the results of the public consultation undertaken in 2004 when they decided to amend the planned accommodation in School 2, without further consultation. She considered that the Council were at fault in failing to provide the public with a further opportunity to make their views known and to vote for or against the amendments. She was aggrieved because she believed that the amended accommodation schedule was inadequate and would result in more than one teacher per classroom. Mrs C complained also that the Council failed to reply to her formal complaint on the matter.

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

• (a) failed to carry out further consultation following a change of specification for School 2 (not upheld); and
• (b) failed to reply to Mrs C's formal complaint in line with their procedures (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council ensure that their complaints handling systems which are being reviewed make provision for each stage of the process to be dealt with in the timescales which they have set themselves to respond and that an update will be sent to the customer in the event of a delay.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care her son received from Social Work Services at Aberdeen City Council (the Council) through the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) in the months prior to his death in 2006. Mrs C raised these concerns through the Council's complaints process, up to and including a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (CRC). The CRC made a number of resolutions (duly noted by the Council) but advised Mrs C that the actions and decisions of the CMHT were not a matter the CRC could consider. Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman's office about her original concerns and that the CRC had ruled the actions of the CMHT out of its remit. Mrs C was unhappy that it appeared that her complaints should rather have been addressed through the NHS complaints procedure but the Council had not advised her of this earlier.

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

• (a) the CRC failed to appropriately address Mrs C's complaints (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to take adequate steps to collaborate with the NHS to ensure that Mrs C received a full response to her complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that guidance to CRC members and relevant staff clearly indicates the importance of careful drafting of the CRC minute, to ensure that a decision on each complaint considered is recorded and the basis for any recommendations is explained;
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C for their failure to follow-up with the NHS on the joint issues of her complaint;
• (iii) that guidance to CRCs and members of Council staff who support them is reviewed, to ensure that CRC minutes can fully reflect the conclusions reached and reasons for decisions made; and
• (iv) advise him of the development and progress of an action plan from within the working group towards a policy for managing joint complaints in partnership with the NHS.

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

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) bought her present flat in a tenement in Edinburgh in September 2004. She raised a number of concerns about the issue and administration of statutory notices that were served on owners in June 2005 by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) under subsection 24(1) of the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. She was aggrieved that as an owner, the notices of June 2005 had not been served on her and that she was not alerted to the scale of her liability until September 2008.

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

• (a) failed to inform Ms C as a co-owner of the service of statutory notices on 24 June 2005 (upheld);
• (b) and their agents failed to update Ms C on the progress of the works (upheld); and
• (c) delayed in serving the accounts for the works until September 2008 and failed to give Ms C appropriate opportunity to make financial arrangements (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures in updating their database on property ownership to ensure that the database is current; and (ii) consider whether, given their failures to issue Ms C with the statutory notice and to directly update her, there is scope for them to commute part of their administration charge in respect of the contract.

The Council informed the Ombudsman that they accepted the findings in the report, and had set in place action in implementation of the recommendations including the waiving of a third of their administration charge.