Local Government

Overview

Mr and Mrs C and Mr and Mrs D (the Complainants) are two sets of neighbours whose properties sit either side of a residential property which was granted planning permission to be extended. The Complainants are aggrieved with the Council's handling of the planning proposals for the original development and the subsequent amendments to the consent. Mr and Mrs D complained also of delay and failure by the Council to reply to their correspondence on the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council:

• (a) mishandled the planning proposals relating to the extension of a residential property; (upheld) and
• (b) failed to deal properly with Mr and Mrs D's representations about these proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures to ensure that these contain clear advice on reporting to the Planning Committee where premature works have been carried out, whether or not these form part of the representations to a development proposal;
• (ii) formally apologise to Mr and Mrs C and Mr and Mrs D for the shortcomings identified in this report;
• (iii) make a payment of £500 to Mr and Mrs C and also to Mr and Mrs D towards their expenses; and
• (iv) examine and consider improvements in how they handle correspondence in any ongoing service review.

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

Overview

Mr and Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman's office that Aberdeen City Council (the Council) had failed to respond appropriately to complaints they made against a neighbour regarding their alleged behaviour. The complaints centred on, but were not exclusively about, noise emanating from their neighbour's property. At the time Mr C, Mrs C and their neighbour were tenants of the Council. In their various complaints to the Council about their neighbour's behaviour, Mr and Mrs C alleged that the Council both failed to document the reports of anti-social behaviour made by them and that, in meetings held with Council Housing Department officials, decisions were not recorded or followed up.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) telephone calls made by Mr and Mrs C to the Council's Neighbour Complaints Unit were either not recorded or not fully recorded (upheld);
• (b) records of meetings held with the Council's Housing Department officials were either not recorded or not fully recorded (upheld); and
• (c) the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to Mr and Mrs C's complaint of anti-social behaviour (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council write to Mr and Mrs C, apologising for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding her new tenancy, in relation to the internal and external condition of the home and garden. She also said that the central heating system (the System) in place on taking tenancy was not fit for purpose and the new central heating system (the Replacement System) installed by Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) was inadequate. Finally, she complained about the Council's failure to connect a mains water supply to her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) the failure of the Council to repair or modernise the house and garden, prior to and since taking up tenancy, and to make the house wind and watertight (upheld);
• (b) the System in place when Mrs C took up tenancy was not fit for the purpose intended and the Replacement System was inadequate (upheld); and
• (c) the failure of the Council to connect a mains water supply to the home (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) meet with Mrs C to identify and agree the repairs still required to the house, taking account of the issues identified in paragraphs 13 and 16, together with any other outstanding repairs, and their decision to upgrade all Cruden homes as reported in paragraph 38;
• (ii) provide him with an action plan detailing timescales to complete the outstanding works;
• (iii) reconsider Mrs C's claim for compensation for damage caused to her property from the flood;
• (iv) take action to insulate and draught proof Mrs C's property adequately;
• (v) re-assess the effectiveness of the Replacement System in relation to Mrs C's property, following action to insulate and draught proof Mrs C's home; and
• (vi) provide a full formal apology for the delay in connecting Mrs C to a mains water supply and for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that Dundee City Council (Council 1) restricted her autistic grandson (Mr A)'s access to education and life skills development by refusing to fund a residential placement for him at college.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Council 1 failed to provide a service to Mr A to meet his assessed needs (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1:

• (i) review their practices for informing service users and their families of services that have been recommended and agreed;
• (ii) remind staff of the importance of recording on file service users' agreement with the content of their needs assessments;
• (iii) formally apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for the confusion and protracted correspondence caused by their failure to properly explain the reasons for their decision from the outset; and
• (iv) pay Mrs C the sum of £150.00 in recognition of the time and trouble that she went to to pursue this complaint.

Council 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act upon them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns regarding the care package provided to her sister (Ms A) that was co-ordinated by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council). She believed that the number of hours care was not adequate to meet Ms A's needs, and that care providers were wrong in their view that Ms A could make decisions for herself.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms A was not receiving a care package that was adequate for her needs (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council and Ms C enter into constructive dialogue to resolve any outstanding issues and to deal with future changes to Ms A's care package, to help all involved understand the issues and gain reassurance about the support being provided. This would, of course, take place only with Ms A's consent in the light of the Council's stated responsibility to give primary consideration to Ms A's needs and wishes.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) complained on behalf of a local action group (the Action Group) about the way in which Renfrewshire Council (the Council) handled a planning application and granted permission for a security fence on part of a former Royal Ordnance Factory site (the ROF site).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) planning permission was granted contrary to an undertaking given to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee and the Examination in Public (the EiP) (partially upheld, to the extent that the Council did not communicate clearly to the EiP their intentions with regard to the security fence application);
• (b) there was no need for a security fence (no finding);
• (c) the granting of planning permission prejudices the consideration of objections to the other applications pending (not upheld);
• (d) permission was granted, incorrectly, under delegated powers (not upheld);
• (e) the Council erred in accepting the application, which Ms C claimed should have had an accompanying environmental statement or information about contamination (not upheld); and
• (f) the Council's procedures for delegated powers were inadequate, in that the Director of Planning and Transport was not required to publish his delegated report in advance (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to the Action Group that they did not communicate clearly to the EiP their intentions with regard to the security fence application.

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

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.