Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) was concerned that Fife Council (the Council), in the course of processing a planning application, had deleted a term in a Section 75 agreement (the Agreement - a legal agreement between a planning authority and a developer) without referring the matter back to elected members on the Council's East Area Development Committee (the Committee).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council dropped a requirement that a developer (the Developer) should demonstrate seven million pounds of membership sales for a proposed golf complex without referring this change back to the Committee (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the school transport provision for their daughter (Child A).  They felt that the current transport arrangements were not safe and that they were never told that the school their daughter attends was not the one zoned for her.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) failed to take adequate steps to ensure that Mr and Mrs C were aware of which primary school their daughter was zoned to attend nor did they explain the transport implications of this (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council provide free school transport to Child A and her sister, both of whom already attend School 1, until the end of their primary schooling from the pick up/drop off point which would have been agreed had Child A been within the catchment area of School 1.  In addition, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council look favourably on future applications for transport to School 1 for any other siblings of Child A.

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

Overview

Three complainants (Mr A, Mr B and Mr C) raised a number of issues regarding South Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning application for the erection of a telecommunications mast and associated equipment in a street near their homes.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) provided the Planning Committee (the Committee) and objectors with inaccurate information on a planning application for the erection of a telecommunications mast and associated equipment in a street near the complainants' homes (partially upheld); and
• (b) failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the telecommunications mast and associated equipment erected by the applicants complied with planning consent (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to the complainants for providing the Committee with inaccurate information on the planning application;
• (ii) ensure that, in future, more thorough checks are made on documentation for planning applications to ensure that those documents which are current and those which are superseded are clearly identified; and
• (iii) ensure that, in future, planning reports to Committee contain information on the history of the application, comparing the original scheme with the final proposal and outlining any significant changes which have been made.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling of his complaint about the investigation by the education authority of an incident involving his son and another pupil in the school playground at his primary school.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) did not:

• (a) properly investigate Mr C's complaint (upheld); and
• (b) deal in a timely manner with Mr C's complaint and his request for a copy of the Council's investigation report and the Council's policy of response to assault in a playground (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• (ii) remind staff dealing with complaints of the importance of explaining how they have reached their decisions; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for not sending sooner the two documents he requested.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised his concerns that the consultation process used by the Highland Council (the Council) when deciding to close a primary school in the Council’s area (Primary School 1) was inappropriate.  Mr C considered this led to a flawed decision to close the school.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not follow the correct procedures when carrying out the consultation into the options for the future of Primary School 1 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns that East Lothian Council (the Council) Building Control Department failed to provide her with an appropriate service during the construction of her home.  In particular, she considers that because of poor administration, the Council failed to respond to her enquiries and mislaid documentation sent to them causing delay and additional expense.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to respond to Ms C's telephone and written enquiries concerning roof trusses during January and February 2005 (upheld);
• (b) failed to make any specific comment on the fact that Ms C had to re-engage her builder to complete a further Completion Certificate application and Electrical Certificate when these had already been received by the Council and were on file (upheld);
• (c) did not properly consider Ms C's claim for compensation (upheld); and
• (d) failed to follow their formal complaints procedure when dealing with Ms C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that it has suitable procedures in place to prevent documentation being overlooked in future;
• (ii) remind all relevant staff of the importance of responding to requests for compensation; and
• (iii) review its compliance with its complaints procedures to ensure that complainants are kept informed if timescales cannot be met.

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

Overview

Two neighbours (Mr C and Mr D), complained to the Ombudsman that Fife Council (the Council) had not taken appropriate planning enforcement action in respect of a new house which was being constructed adjacent to their respective properties.  They made further complaints about the Council's actions in granting planning consent for two windows which overlooked their properties.  During the investigation, a further complaint was made regarding the construction of a patio area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) delayed in taking enforcement action by allowing building work, which was not in accordance with the plans, to continue despite Mr C and Mr D's complaints (not upheld);
• (b) failed to deal with Mr C and Mr D's complaint regarding the orientation of the house (upheld);
• (c) failed to properly consider the effect on Mr C and Mr D's privacy before granting planning permission in respect of the house's lounge windows (not upheld); and
• (d) failed to take action in respect of the patio area having said they would (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council;

• (i) apologise to Mr C and Mr D for their failure to adequately address their complaint, the shortcomings in reporting on how the incorrect labelling of the plans and the issue of overlooking the gardens have been dealt with; and
• (ii) review their system of dealing with errors in application plans to avoid situations in which members of the public might be misled.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that her daughter (Miss A) was not provided with access to educational services by Comhairle nan Eilan Siar (the Council) in that they failed to protect her from bullying at the school she attended (School 1) and unreasonably refused a transport request to allow her to attend a new school (School 2).  Ms C was also concerned that her complaints had not been adequately dealt with, in that there were unacceptable delays in the complaints procedure and that the Council failed to provide adequate reasons for their decisions.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to provide Miss A with educational services by failing to take appropriate steps to protect her from bullying at School 1 (not upheld);
• (b) failed to provide Miss A with educational services by unreasonably refusing a transport request to allow her to attend School 2 (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to deal adequately with Ms C's complaints by constantly delaying the complaints procedure and failing to give adequate reasons for their decisions (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) implement a system to ensure that the receipt of all letters to the Council are logged on the day they are delivered;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the failure to acknowledge her letter of 10 October2006 within three working days;
• (iii) review their complaints procedure to ensure that complainants are provided with a formal explanation if the response to a complaint will take longer than the stated timescales;
• (iv) devise and implement a written procedure for the appeals panel element of the Complaints and Appeals procedure; and
• (v) review their communication policies and procedures to ensure that it is clear to recipients what documents should be enclosed with letters from the Council.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that she had completed and returned an application form for an Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for her son (Mr C) for the academic year 2005/06 but that Renfrewshire Council (the Council) refused the application.  The Council did not consider the application on the grounds that it was submitted after the closing date for applications.  Mrs C complained that it was submitted prior to the closing date but that the Council then asked for additional information, not asked for on the original application form and then failed to inform Mrs C of the deadline date to return this information to them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the closing date for applications to be received by the Council was not included on the application form (upheld);
• (b) Mrs C was not subsequently informed, in her dealings with the Council, of the deadline for submitting the application (upheld);
• (c) Mrs C submitted all the information initially requested but was then asked for additional information (upheld); and
• (d) the Council should have awarded Mr C an EMA for the academic year 2005/06 (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council increase their offer of a £500 ex-gratia payment to £840, to reflect the basic allowance and bonus payment Mr C would have been entitled to had his application been accepted.  The Ombudsman asks that the Council notify her when the recommendation has been implemented.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) considered that the Council had failed either to find a permanent campsite for gypsy/travellers in the Moray area or deal effectively with the environmental problems arising from an unauthorised campsite which is sited in proximity to his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to provide an alternative (permanent) campsite for gypsy/travellers (not upheld); and
• (b) failure to deal effectively with the environmental problems arising from an unauthorised campsite (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) notify her when permanent facilities have been set up;
• (ii) consider taking appropriate enforcement action, where it is established that there is unacceptable behaviour on the unauthorised campsite contrary to their code of acceptable behaviour; and
• (iii) review their protocol to ensure that the rights of the settled community are given equal consideration to those of the gypsy/travellers.

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