Local Government

Overview

The complainants (Mrs C and Ms B) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling of their complaint by East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council). The complaint submitted to the Council related to care services provided to Mrs C's parents.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to handle the complaint made by Mrs C and Ms B properly (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) reflect on how they handled this complaint and the specific failings identified in this report and remind staff of the importance of communicating effectively on such matters; and
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C and Ms B for failing to make it clear to them that the Complaint Review Committee meeting was not being formally minuted and for failing to inform Mrs C that not all of her comments would be submitted to the Social Services Committee.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that North Ayrshire Council (the Council) Trading Standards officers had provided incorrect information to two newspapers about their involvement in a dispute he had with one of his customers. He considered that any discussion on the matter between Council officials and the press also amounted to a breach of his confidentiality. He further complained that Council officials had repeatedly and deliberately misled him and provided incorrect and incomplete answers to his questions and complaints to cover-up certain actions of the Trading Standards officer who had discussed the complaint about his building firm with the press.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that;

• (a) Council officials did not respond adequately to Mr C's representation to them about alleged breaches of confidentiality by one of their officers (upheld); and
• (b) Council staff lied to Mr C about staff contacts with journalists. Mr C considers that there has been an abuse of power (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman had already made informal recommendations to the Council which were accepted and acted on by them. Consequently, the Ombudsman has no further recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the actions of Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) in preparing reports subsequent to an incident reported to the police by his then wife, and how they addressed his complaints about those actions.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

(a) did not deal appropriately with their enquiries involving Mr C (partially upheld to the extent that Mr C was not given an earlier opportunity to assess the factual accuracy of the Social Background Report); and

(b) did not deal appropriately with Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was aggrieved that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) unreasonably awarded her tenant (the tenant) empty property relief for the property she owned after she had been awarded it, and while he was continuing to use the premises for storage purposes. She complained that she was not notified that she was no longer entitled to the three month exemption period or that the tenant had been awarded the relief. She further complained that the Council were pursuing her for monies she did not owe.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council unreasonably awarded empty property relief to the tenant after Mrs C had already been awarded it (not upheld);
• (b) the Council's decision to award empty property relief to the tenant was wrong because he was using the premises for storage purposes and they were not empty (partially upheld to the extent that the Council did not make more reasonable enquiries beforehand to inform their decision making process on how to classify a property as 'empty');
• (c) the Council incorrectly interpreted The Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (Scotland) Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) to mean 'non-trading' (partially upheld to the extent that the Council did not make more reasonable enquiries beforehand to inform their decision making process on how to classify a property as 'unoccupied');
• (d) the Council failed to notify Mrs C that the tenant had been awarded the relief (upheld);
• (e) the Council's application form is misleading as it refers to 'empty property' rather than 'unoccupied' and does not warn applicants that they may lose the exemption if someone with a prior interest in the property makes a successful application at a later date (upheld); and
• (f) the Council wrongly continued to pursue Mrs C for the £343.51 they alleged she owed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) take the issue of non-domestic rates for discussion to the Scottish Association of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) before making any changes to their current procedures;
• (ii) should conduct a full review of their policies and procedures on this matter, following discussion with the IRRV, and provide clear guidance notes for staff to ensure that customers are kept informed of any changes to awards already made; and
• (iii) amend their application form to explain the definition of unoccupied property relief and include appropriate caveats/warnings. Rating notices should similarly be reworded to avoid confusion.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly. I am pleased to note that, before the report was published, the Council accepted my recommendation that they write off the £343.51 Mrs C owed. This was in recognition of the fact that they intend to review their practices and procedures on non-domestic rates in light of this complaint, and in recognition of the poor customer service Mrs C received.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) has a son (Child C) with special educational needs, who attends a secondary school (the School) in the area of West Lothian Council (the Council). Mr C raised concerns over the way the Council's Education Department handled his grievance with the School about adjusting Child C's second year timetable, and the Chief Executive's handling of his formal complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council's:

• (a) Education Department did not make an appropriate intervention to resolve a problem which had arisen with the School over Child C's timetable choices (not upheld);
• (b) Education Department failed to direct Mr C to his entitlement to mediation services (partially upheld); and
• (c) Chief Executive did not carry out an appropriate investigation before responding to Mr C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the Education Department not referring to the procedures for accessing the Mediation Service in June 2006; for not expediting the mediation requested by Mr C on 23 August 2006; and for the inadequacies in their investigation of, and response to Mr C's concerns; and
• (ii) review Council staff's awareness of the Mediation Service and the availability of the related leaflet.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns with West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council)’s Social Work Department about the care being provided by their agents to his uncle. Mr C pursued this complaint through the Council's complaints procedure and, as he remained unhappy, on 23 November 2007, he requested that a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) hear his complaint. The CRC was not held until 27 October 2008.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council delayed unreasonably in holding a CRC (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report;
• (ii) review their procedures to ensure that the CRC membership is kept up to date at all times;
• (iii) ensure that, in future, any extension to the time limits, as set out in the Directions, is agreed by the complainant(s); and
• (iv) consider, as part of their review of procedures, whether there is a need for specific literature to be provided to Social Work complainants on the complaints procedure. The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) approached Glasgow City Council (the Council) about problems of dampness he was experiencing in his property. He believed that the source of the dampness was his neighbour (Mr N)'s flat. The Council considered that the water ingress constituted a statutory nuisance and served an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which required Mr N to address the source of the problem. Mr N eventually undertook some work which did not stop the dampness. Mr C believed that the Council unreasonably did not use the powers at their disposal to ensure that Mr N took action that would solve the problem.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to enforce an Abatement Notice effectively (upheld); and
• (b) failed to keep Mr C adequately informed about progress of the enforcement of the Abatement Notice (no finding).

 Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr and his wife for a lack of clarity and consistency in their approach to addressing the statutory nuisance; and
• (ii) reflect on what can be done to address the gap between their statutory responsibilities and customer expectations in situations like this.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) failed to arrange the provision of appropriate housing to meet the needs of Mr C and his family from September 2004 to date (the needs arising as a result of Mr C being disabled in a traffic accident in September 2004).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to undertake the appropriate assessments, identify the family’s needs and provide for the necessary housing adaptations in a timely manner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) introduce a detailed assessment framework for identifying the needs of each individual entitled to be so assessed and what adaptations might be required to meet those needs. This assessment should include input from all professionals involved including (but not limited to) Occupational Therapists, Social Workers and Health Professionals;
• (ii) review the current policy with respect to Private Sector Housing Improvement Grants and ensure that the policy is clear as to its limitations (both of funding and which needs will be met) and what adaptations might constitute an exception to the usual limit. Action should also be taken to ensure that relevant staff are fully aware of this policy, these limits and exceptions;
• (iii) introduce a procedure for dealing with adaptation cases where no agreement can be reached;
• (iv) as a matter of urgency produce a statement of needs for Mr C and his family, the adaptations needed to meet these needs and a plan for how these adaptations might be achieved; and
• (v) in recognition of the avoidable delays which have occurred in meeting Mr C's long term needs and the distress caused by this, make a payment to Mr C of £5,000.

The Council have already accepted the recommendations and have already enacted recommendation (iv) and is the process of taking action that will achieve (iii).

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns when The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) and their collection agents pursued him for alleged substantial council tax arrears relating to three former addresses which dated back to 1994. He was concerned at the amount of those arrears and differences between the Council and their collection agents as to how much he allegedly owed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) have failed since March 2007 to provide Mr C with an accurate and comprehensive statement of his indebtedness for council tax (upheld); and
• (b) failed to act on Mr C's assertions that his indebtedness for council tax for certain years has been overstated by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant and his wife (Mr and Mrs C) moved house and relocated their sports tour package business to a town in Fife in February 2004. Shortly thereafter neighbours complained about associated activities and Fife Council (the Council) issued a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) and, after the matter was reported to the Council's Development Committee (the Committee), a Planning Enforcement Notice (PEN). Mr C appealed against the PEN to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU) and that appeal was heard before a reporter (Reporter 2) at a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) in June 2005. Reporter 2's decision was issued on 25 August 2005. Reporter 2 dismissed the appeal, confirmed the PEN subject to a number of amendments and, in a separate determination, refused an application on Mr C's behalf for expenses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) poor and/or incorrect advice was given by Council officers to Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) the Council issued the PCN and subsequently the PEN on the basis of insufficient evidence (partially upheld to the extent of the inadequacy of the report presented to the Committee);
• (c) there was poor and inconsistent handling of matters by the Council and a failure to follow appropriate procedures (not upheld);
• (d) the SEIRU's initial appointment of a reporter (Reporter 1) did not follow relevant guidance on conflict of interest (upheld);
• (e) the PLI and related activity was handled poorly (partially upheld to the extent that not all letters were shared); and
• (f) Reporter 2, in determining the appeal, did not adequately justify his decisions by demonstrating they were based on the available evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the scope of information to be presented to the Committee on planning contravention when seeking authorisation to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action; and The Ombudsman recommends that DPEA remind their staff and panel of reporters of the need to consider whether particular appointments may be perceived as involving a conflict of interest, and that DPEA take account of ethical standards in public life in relation to such appointments.

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