Local Government

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.

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C), raised a number of issues relating to South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)?s handling of a planning application for the formation of a first floor extension above an existing garage and the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the rear of a neighbouring property.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:
(a) failed to consider properly objections relevant to the application (not upheld);
(b) included misleading and incorrect information in their report to the planning committee (not upheld);
(c) granted planning permission against relevant planning policies (not upheld);
(d) failed to apply Building Research Establishment guidance properly in relation to sunlight (not upheld);
(e) failed to calculate correctly sunlight availability in relation to Mr and Mrs C?s property (not upheld);
(f) failed to allow Mr C to give personal statements to the planning committee (not upheld); and
(g) failed to handle Mr and Mrs C?s formal complaint in line with the Council?s complaints procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which Falkirk Council (the Council) had dealt with the development of land to the rear of his home and, in particular, the development of the nearest plot (the Plot). He also complained that the Council had failed to respond in a timely manner to his correspondence.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:
(a) in considering the planning application for the Plot and in treating requests for variations in the finished floor and ground level as non-material, failed to have proper regard to the effect on the amenity of Mr C and his immediate neighbour (Mr B) (upheld); and
(b) failed to acknowledge Mr C's correspondence and respond in a timely manner (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) explore further with Mr C and Mr B whether steps can be taken at the Council's expense to mitigate the detriment to their privacy as a result of overlooking from the house constructed on the Plot; and
(ii) take steps to ensure that they keep complainants updated when they are unable to respond to their complaints within the published timescales.

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) raised four specific complaints about the inadequate handling of a planning application by Falkirk Council (the Council), submitted by a Planning Consultant (the Agent) on her behalf.

Specific Complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed to deal adequately with the pre-planning application enquiry (upheld);
(b) the Council failed to handle the outline planning application adequately and within statutory deadlines (partially upheld);
(c) there were delays by the Council in submitting information in connection with Ms C's appeal to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporter's Unit (SEIRU) (upheld); and
(d) the Council failed both to respond and to respond adequately to reminder letters, emails, faxes and telephone calls (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) offer Ms C a full apology for the shortcomings identified, and consider whether it would be appropriate for this to be reinforced by a modest payment in recognition of the effect of those shortcomings on her;
(ii) apologise to Ms C for the delay in submitting information to SEIRU and explain why it occurred.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) lives in a conservation area in an East Lothian town. His complaint concerned what he considered to be an inadequate response by East Lothian Council (the Council) to his complaints about nuisance from noise from an adjacent children's day care nursery.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have failed to carry out their duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to detect, investigate and take appropriate action in respect of a noise nuisance emanating from an adjacent children's nursery (partially upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council's Environment Department agree with Mr C and his wife an appropriate regime of noise monitoring from the curtilage of their home over the summer months of 2009 to establish whether or not the noise levels they are experiencing constitute a statutory noise nuisance and, if so, seek instructions from the Council as to further action.

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