Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to approve his neighbourﾒs planning application to build an extension and the way in which they responded to his enquiries.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) breached their own planning guidelines for extensions (not upheld);
• (b) failed in their duty to protect Mr C as an adjoining proprietor (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to give Mr C timely advice when requested to do so (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council write to Mr C to apologise for their failure to provide timely responses when requested to do so.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about a decision by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) to remove warden provision from sheltered housing.  He said there had been a failure to consult with tenants and that the information available to Councillors when the decision was made was inadequate.  He also complained about the process of implementation; the transition provisions; and communication generally, including the Council's response to complaints raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not consult with tenants prior to the decision (upheld, to the extent that the decision not to consult was made without legal advice which would have been required to make it soundly based);
• (b) information provided to Councillors, prior to the decision, was inadequate (not upheld);
• (c) there was insufficient planning for the process of implementation and transition provisions (upheld); and
• (d) communication throughout was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures for ensuring appropriate legal advice is obtained and recorded prior to significant decisions;
• (ii) use the implementation of this decision as a case study, to ensure appropriate planning is in place for future service changes;
• (iii) ensure that, for future service changes, adequate and appropriate communication planning is undertaken and monitored; and
• (iv) review the information currently provided to tenants about the new system and ensure that systems are in place to allow tenants to communicate with the Council simply and effectively.

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

Overview

Ms C's complaint resulted from the concern she raised that her elderly aunt (Ms A) had been incorrectly charged for Homecare Services for the preparation of meals by Scottish Borders Council (the Council).  Ms C's concern was addressed by the Council, however, Ms C alleged that the Council dealt inadequately with her complaint about the handling of her concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to guide Ms C through the Council's complaint's process or respond adequately to her complaint regarding the Homecare charges levied against her late aunt (not upheld);
• (b) postponed and delayed the Complaints Review Committee Hearing (the Hearing), which extended over the time period allowed for the Hearing to sit and report (upheld); and
• (c) delayed in forwarding a copy of the Hearing Report to Ms C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Ms C for the delay to the Hearing taking place, and for the delay in forwarding her a copy of the Hearing Report.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the way they were treated by The Moray Council (the Council) as foster carers when a child who had been in their long term care was removed from their care and returned to her biological parents.

Specific complaints and conclusions

• (a) failed when handling the complaint (not upheld); and
• (b) mishandled what Mr and Mrs C described as their de-registering as foster carers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council reflect on their handling of this complaint with a view to giving further consideration in future to signposting individuals to the Complaints Procedure to express their dissatisfaction with a Council service.

The Council have agreed to the recommendation and have already revised their procedure for handling social work complaints, have produced a dedicated statutory guide and a leaflet for the public and are rolling out training for staff.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was aggrieved at the decision of Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) to grant planning consent for the demolition of an adjacent modern villa to allow for the development of land to the rear of his home for residential development.  His complaint was restricted, however, to the Council's failure to take enforcement action in respect of breaches of development control.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council delayed unreasonably in taking action to enforce two conditions of a planning consent issued for the adjacent residential development (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) had erroneously classified as permitted development the construction of a raised decking structure (the Decking) adjacent to a stretch of river for which his company (the Company) owns the fishing rights.  He also complained that the Council failed to take enforcement action when they became aware of their mistake and did not responded timeously to his complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) wrongly considered that the Decking was permitted development which did not require planning permission (upheld);
• (b) inappropriately failed to take enforcement action against the owners of the property (the Owners) (not upheld); and
• (c) took an unnecessary length of time to respond to Mr C's complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council take steps to ensure that:

• (i) planning officers obtain enough information about a proposed structure to be able to give specific advice rather than standard advice which may not be appropriate to the proposed structure; and
• (ii) they respond to complaints in a timely manner and according to their complaints procedure.

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

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.