Local Government

Overview

Mr C’s complaint resulted from the concern he raised that his elderly mother-in-law (Mrs A) had been incorrectly charged for Homecare Services for the preparation of meals by Scottish Borders Council (the Council).  Mr C’s concern was acknowledged by the Council and there was an exchange of correspondence and emails between them, however, Mr C alleged that the Council inadequately dealt with his concern and, thereafter, his complaint.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council demonstrated poor complaints handling by not adequately responding to the complaint Mr C made, regarding their Homecare Charges (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that all emails (and all manner of contact) are responded to, and responded to in good time, and that the Council adhere to their complaints handling procedure in this regard;
• (ii) seek to improve communication between Council departments when handling complaints and enquiries, such as in this case that involved the Social Work Department and Legal Services Department. This should include considering at what point the Customer Care Manager should be involved to co-ordinate and lead procedures. In addition, when a complaint or enquiry (formal or informal) is passed to another Council department for further action, the reason for this is explained to the complainant; and
• (iii) offer an apology to Mr C for the inadequate manner his complaint was dealt with.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding enforcement action which was taken against him by Renfrewshire Council (the Council).  This action related to the unauthorised retail use of his premises on an Industrial Estate within the Council’s area (the Estate).  Mr C did not believe this action to be consistent with the treatment of other businesses carrying out similar retail activity on the Estate.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that, in taking enforcement action against Mr C, the Council treated him unfairly when compared with their treatment of other businesses on the Estate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had not properly investigated his complaint regarding the circumstances in which he was asked to leave Bed and Breakfast accommodation.  Specifically, he considered that the Council's investigation had been ineffective in the taking of witness statements.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the way in which the Council investigated Mr C's complaint was ineffective (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) issue Mr C with a full formal apology for the failures identified in this report; and
• (ii) review the handling of this case; and inform her of the action taken to ensure that a similar failing does not reoccur.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was a disabled tenant of Dundee City Council (the Council).  Following a number of falls and the alteration of her front steps, Mrs C had difficulties entering and leaving her house.  She approached the Council to ask that her entrance be suitably modified to assist her access.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not respond reasonably to Mrs C’s request for suitable adaptations to the front entrance of her house to assist her access (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council give full consideration to the reinstatement of the original layout of Mrs C’s steps and any other measures that may assist Mrs C in accessing her property.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues with North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) concerning the handling of the storage and subsequent destruction of his belongings.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was insufficient contact with Mr C before disposing of his belongings which had been held in storage (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) include within their new Storage Procedures, advice for applicants using the storage facilities that they should detail any valuable items on the inventory; and
• (ii) ensure that a copy of the signed inventory is retained on the relevant file.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns against Fife Council (the Council) that they had not, in a fitting manner, considered his offer to purchase land at a site within East Fife (the Site).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) improperly changed their position by not selling two plots of land at the Site which they had marketed during February 2005 (not upheld); and
• (a) had not acted properly, in delaying the sale until the development status was known (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the Ombudsman has not upheld this complaint, she is pleased that the Council acknowledged there were gaps in their records of some of the processes involved, regarding their considerations of the development potential of the Site, as it is essential that written records are maintained to the highest standard possible, throughout all planning processes.  Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the circumstances which led to this failure; consider whether there are lessons to be learned from this; and advise her of the outcome.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had not dealt satisfactorily with his enquiries and complaints about the use of a piece of land opposite his garage.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not deal appropriately, or adequately, with Mr C's enquiries and complaints regarding the use of Council land opposite his garage (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures and practice on the investigation of complaints of abandoned vehicles to ensure that any claims that vehicles have been parked with permission are appropriately verified; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for the maladministration he has been subject to.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that Stirling Council (the Council) did not take account of the views of local residents when dealing with planning applications for a Public Private Partnership (PPP) project to build a new school and new housing on land near to his home.  Mr C was also of the view that that the Council did not deal with the planning applications impartially.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to take account of the views expressed by local residents in relation to the development of a new school and housing (partially upheld); and
• (b) failed to apply appropriate 'standards in public life' measures when following the planning process (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council ensure that the presentation of the volume and format of objections to development proposals and planning applications, in particular on a similar scale to those dealt with in this report, is clear in reports to Council Committees, and that such reports take care to draw a clear distinction between individual correspondence, and objections from individuals which may come collated in petition form.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) lived adjacent to a hotel (the Hotel), which received planning consent for an extension.  During the construction of this extension, Mr C raised a number of concerns about the access to the site by contractors by way of a private road that was granted by Fife Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:
(a) did not adequately monitor access to a development site (upheld); and
(b) did not communicate adequately with Mr C over this matter (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for any added distress and inconvenience caused by insufficient monitoring of a contractors' use of a private access road and for shortcomings in their communications over this matter.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) is unhappy with the way that an application that he made on behalf of his voluntary organisation for funding for a mobile service for 2006-2007 was handled.  He raised concerns about The Moray Council (the Council)'s responses to letters from him and an MSP about the application.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C considers that information provided by the Council about the funding application in a letter to an MSP dated 22 March 2006 and in a letter to him dated 5 July 2006 was incorrect (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

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