Local Government

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.

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.