Local Government

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.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) was studying for an English language qualification and claimed that The Highland Council (the Council) had misinformed her about the status of the qualification and had delayed giving her the certificate for the qualification.  She also claimed that a member of Council staff behaved inappropriately while on a visit to her home, and that the Council did not deal with her complaint about the matter satisfactorily.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) misleading information about a language qualification was provided to Mrs C by the Council and there was an unacceptable delay in her being given her certificate (not upheld);
(b) a member of Council staff behaved inappropriately during a visit to Mrs C's home (no finding); and
(c) the Council did not deal with Mrs C's complaint about the matter satisfactorily (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about the Head Teacher (Head Teacher 1) of the primary school (the School) her daughter (Ms A) attended up to 20 December 2005.  These regarded the manner in which Head Teacher 1 dealt with her complaint and her alleged failure in the duty of care the School had demonstrated towards Ms A.  Ms C also raised concerns about Glasgow City Council, (the Council) in that they had not adequately followed their complaints procedures after Ms C and her partner (Mr B) complained to them about their dissatisfaction with the outcome and manner the School dealt with their complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) Head Teacher 1, when Ms A was a pupil at the School, had not dealt adequately with Ms C's complaint that the School had failed in their duty of care towards her daughter (not upheld); and
(b) the Council failed to follow satisfactorily their complaints procedure after Ms C complained to them about the way her complaint was handled by the School (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) take action to ensure that, during the course of a formal complaints investigation, statements made as part of the investigation are dated and include, wherever possible, dates of the events recounted within the statements;
(ii) that written records which form part of an investigation are retained for an agreed period of time; and
(iii) give consideration to the inclusion of this within the procedures outlined in the relevant section of the School's Pastoral Care Policy.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns on behalf of one of his constituents (Mrs A) about issues relating to a mistake made by the Council in allocating a place for her eldest child at a primary school which was outwith the catchment area.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council unfairly withdrew Mrs A's son's right to free transport on his transfer to secondary school (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) formally apologise to Mrs A for the errors which have occurred in this case; and
• (ii) put in place arrangements to provide Mrs A's son with free transport to and from school, during his secondary education, for such time as he remains at his current school.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by the Highland Council (the Council) of a planning application to build a new property next to their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to ensure that the new property was at least 2 metres from the plot boundary, as specified in the Design Brief (upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to ensure that the footprint of the house did not exceed 25 percent of the plot area, as specified in the Design Brief (not upheld); and
• (c) Mr and Mrs C are unhappy with the Council's response to their complaints about the height of the house (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the case to establish if there are any lessons that can be learned for future developments of this nature.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have acted on them accordingly.