Local Government

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and Ms D) purchased a commercial property on the ground floor of a tenement block in Edinburgh in the autumn of 2004. In the subsequent three and a half years, they received no communication from The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council). On 7 April 2008 they received accounts from the Council for nearly £7,600 in respect of works instructed under notices issued by the Council under the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Mr C and Ms D raised a number of concerns about the Council's handling of the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to serve Mr C and Ms D as part owners of the tenement with statutory notices issued on 13 October 2004 (not upheld);
• (b) failed to update their records on ownership and keep Mr C and Ms D informed of progress on the contract (upheld); and
• (c) failed to respond sympathetically to Mr C and Ms D's request to be given sufficient time to pay accounts for nearly £7,600 of which they had no prior forewarning (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the statutory notice intimation and relevant subsequent correspondence include an appropriate statement for the recipient to contact the Council to alert them to any change in ownership;
• (ii) in the case of commercial properties included in statutory notices, Corporate Property and Contingency Planning institute a practice of checking with the Scottish Assessors Association website to ascertain whether there has been a pertinent recent change of ownership which would require them to update their ownership records; and
• (iii) in the light of the failure to communicate with Mr C and Ms D and update them, the Council consider whether it is appropriate to levy the full administration charge.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have acted on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the handling by East Lothian Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent for a new house on a main road opposite his own property in a conservation village in East Lothian. He was particularly concerned about the likely dominant effect on a former smithy and on parking congestion on the main road.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that in recommending approval of the Application, the Council's Transportation Division and planning case officer failed to require compliance with relevant Council planning policy in respect of car-parking provision (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the present procedures for the need for site visits by their Transportation Division officers prior to responding to consultations on planning applications.

The Council accepted that recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that the school, where her son (Mr C) is a pupil, did not bring to her attention that her son was entitled to apply for an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for the academic year 2006-2007. Mrs C says that Mr C, who has learning difficulties, missed out on receiving an EMA because retrospective payments cannot be made.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the School did not bring to Mrs C's attention that Mr C was entitled to apply for an EMA for the academic year 2006-2007 (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council):

• (i) pay to Mrs C the sum of £1,140 in lieu of the basic allowance payment and an additional payment of £300 in lieu of the bonus payment which Mr C would have been entitled to had he applied for and received an EMA for session 2006-2007; and
• (ii) issue Mrs C with an apology for any inconvenience which she may have been caused.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that her daughter (Child A) had been bullied at her school (the School), and the School had not recorded the incidents of bullying clearly or managed the bullying in line with Shetland Islands Council (the Council)'s procedures. Additionally, Mrs C complained the Council failed to convene a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) to consider a further aspect of a complaint, which related in part, to the remaining issues subject to investigation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the methods of recording and collating incidents of bullying were unclear (upheld);
• (b) the procedures for managing incidents of reported bullying were not adhered to (upheld); and
• (c) the Council failed to convene a CRC to hear Mrs C's complaints about the social work department (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) support the School in a review of their record-keeping to reflect the incidents of new bullying and episodes of continued bullying. This reporting schedule will highlight the progress being made to address new and older reported episodes of bullying within the School;
• (ii) review the School's criteria for first time/new incidents of bullying and the identification of ongoing bullying issues to be clearly set out separately to reduce the confusion and misunderstanding;
• (iii) support the School's development of appropriate contingency plans to be introduced to the policy of handling bullying when a number of incidents are being reported by the same pupil and evidence is difficult to obtain from other children;
• (iv) ensure the local policies are adhered to and explanations are recorded within the documentation when there is a departure from the prescribed procedure;
• (v) apologise to Mrs C and Child A for the confusion caused as a result of diverting from the documented procedure;
• (vi) review their procedures and practices to ensure CRCs can be held within set timescales; and
• (vii) apologise to Mrs C for the delay in convening a CRC.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the way complaints were dealt with by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) and the Council's Education Department (the Department).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to properly handle complaints made by Mrs C and her husband (Mr C) (upheld); and
• (b) procedures in the Department for considering complaints are biased against the complainant (upheld to the extent that there is insufficient independence in the complaints process).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified in the handling of the complaints; and
• (ii) review their complaints process and include an independent element in the final stage of the process for handling complaints about education. Additionally, the Ombudsman suggests that the Council should ensure that information about how to make a complaint about a school or their staff is made available in the Council's schools.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s handling of an application for planning consent by a community group to upgrade a children's play area in a public park adjoining his home which he did not consider had been installed according to the approved plans.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) in reaching a decision to grant planning consent for the application, the Council failed to have proper regard to the amenity of neighbours (not upheld);
(b) the Council's planning enforcement team had not properly investigated the issue of whether the development as built complies with the approved plans (upheld); and
(c) the Council had not taken appropriate steps to secure for the public record a copy of the approved plans (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommended that, in light of the failure to obtain a copy of the approved plans, the circumstances be reported to the appropriate committee as a potential enforcement action issue.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the response of West Lothian Council (the Council) to problems that she had reported with regard to her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed satisfactorily to address persistent problems of water ingress and dampness in the house (not upheld);
(b) the Council failed to take the opportunity to carry out necessary repairs when the family temporarily vacated the property (partially upheld to the extent that the Council did not immediately let Mrs C know that repairs could not be undertaken when the family were absent);
(c) although dehumidifiers were supplied by the Council to dry out the house, Mrs C was not reimbursed for additional electricity consumed (partially upheld); and
(d) Council workmen attending to carry out repairs, damaged Mrs C's flooring and, thereafter, misrepresented the extent of that damage to the Council's insurers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
(i) revisit the repairs history of the particular house in comparison with similar houses in the immediate vicinity to establish whether there are recurrent problems;
(ii) review the arrangements for carrying out repairs where there is a risk to the health of a tenant with a known medical condition; and
(iii) review the adequacy of the advice given on the Council?s policy with regard to reimbursement when they supply dehumidifiers to tenants.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s administration of housing benefit for one of his tenants (the Tenant). He complained that the Council failed to properly investigate the Tenant's personal circumstances, or follow the correct procedures, when paying housing benefit, resulting in financial loss for Mr C.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed to follow their own, and the Department for Work and Pensions, guidance when administering the Tenant's housing benefit account (upheld);
(b) the Council failed to adequately investigate the Tenant's personal circumstances before deciding to pay housing benefit to the Tenant (upheld); and
(c) the Council's communication was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) pay any outstanding amounts to cover rent arrears for the period 20 November 2006 to 23 September 2007 to Mr C in one single payment;
(ii) remind their staff of their procedures for advising interested parties of decisions made in relation to Local Housing Allowance accounts; and
(iii) apologise to Mr C for failings identified in this report.

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

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) complained about the manner in which Community Charge was recovered by Midlothian Council (the Council). They disputed an outstanding amount the Council indicated as having been owed by Mrs C, and they did not believe the Council had a right to recover the debt through an internal data matching scheme without, in their view, letting them have prior notice of the debt before deferring to this measure.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed to take steps to recover the debt until it was highlighted in an employee initiative scheme (not upheld);
(b) the Council was unable to provide contemporaneous evidence of the outstanding debt (not upheld);
(c) the Council pursued the debt in an unreasonable manner (not upheld); and
(d) the Council's arrestment procedure commenced before the complaints procedure was fully exhausted (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends the Council notifies complainants that action in relation to the arrestment of wages for the recovery of debt may continue during the handling of the complaint; to avoid the risk of misunderstandings in future cases.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about how Glasgow City Council (the Council)'s Social Work Service handled complaints made by local residents about problems arising from a nearby children's unit (the Children's Unit), about the Social Work Service's application for planning consent for the extension of the Children's Unit, and the consideration of that application by the Council's Development and Regeneration Service.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council's Social Work Service failed to record and respond appropriately to complaints about the behaviour of children in the Children's Unit (partially upheld);
(b) the Council's Development and Regeneration Service arbitrarily extinguished conditions attached by the former authority to a previous consent for change of use relating to car parking and the maximum number of children to be accommodated (not upheld); and
(c) the Council's Development and Regeneration Service failed in considering the application for the extension of the Children's Unit accurately to apply a relevant City Plan policy with reference to retained landscaped area within the curtilage of the property (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council review whether, in the case of complaints about the Social Work Service management response to problems emanating from children in the Council's care, which are not appropriate for being dealt with in terms of the statutory procedure, these should be considered under their corporate complaints procedure.

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