Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was a tenant of Fife Council (the Council) who reported damage to his bathroom which occurred in the course of a replacement programme.  He complained that the Council’s response to this was not adequate.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that a contractor caused damage to Mr C’s bathroom in the course of carrying out work on behalf of the Council and the Council’s proposed remedy for this damage was not reasonable (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling of a planning application by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the letter of 11 July 2005 resulted in unnecessary delay affecting the progression of the application (not upheld);
• (b) the terms of the letter dated 11 July 2005 which was issued to Mr C's client were inaccurate (upheld);
• (c) the Council failed to register the application which resulted in an unnecessary two-month delay (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council failed to issue a letter requesting an extension for dealing with the application as required by statute (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for issuing an inaccurate and misleading letter.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns on behalf of her sister (Ms A) regarding kitchen unit replacement and electrical rewiring work instructed by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to Ms A’s tenancy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to respond appropriately to representations made about unnecessary disruption to the decoration in Ms A’s home (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council’s award of an allowance to Ms A to make good the extensively disrupted decoration in her home was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

Given that the Council formulated their policy on decoration/disturbance allowances some 11 years ago when they brought together the policies of the three predecessor housing authorities, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council give consideration as to whether a review of that policy should be undertaken.

The Council accepted the recommendation and stated that they intend to review decoration/disturbance allowances and to report to a future meeting of the appropriate committee.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding Angus Council (the Council)'s handling of a complaint which he raised with them regarding their selection process for a vacant post within the Council.  He believed that it was inappropriate for the Chief Executive to have handled the complaint, given his involvement in the said selection process.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Chief Executive should not have investigated Mr C's complaint to the Council due to his involvement with the selection process, which was the subject of the said complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) remind their staff to act with caution where any conflict of interest could be reasonably perceived to exist; and
• (ii) introduce a procedure for complaints against the Chief Executive. This could also be utilised where the Chief Executive is unable to investigate a complaint due to a conflict of interest, thus ensuring complainants have the right to an investigation by a party not previously involved in the process.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) formerly lived in a detached house in the country adjacent to a Forestry Commission operation centre (the Depot).  Mr C complained about a number of planning proposals submitted by the Forestry Commission and the handling of those applications by Scottish Borders Council (the Council) and what he considered to be breaches of development control.  Together, Mr and Mrs C raised a number of concerns regarding the operation of the Depot and public access and matters concerning the operation of a café and bicycle hire business (the Business).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council, as planning authority, failed properly to exercise their powers of development control and enforcement both with regard to the general planning situation at the Depot and with regard to temporary planning consents for the Business (not upheld);
• (b) the Forestry Commission, as developers, allowed activities to commence ahead of obtaining planning consent and made errors in their proposals to the detriment of Mr and Mrs C (partially upheld to the extent that some activities began before planning consents were granted); and
• (c) the Forestry Commission, as owners of the Depot and landlords of the Business, failed to act with diligence in dealing with issues of indecency, noise, wind blown dust and disturbance to Mr and Mrs C at anti-social hours (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) formerly lived in a detached house in the country adjacent to a Forestry Commission operation centre (the Depot).  Mr C complained about a number of planning proposals submitted by the Forestry Commission and the handling of those applications by Scottish Borders Council (the Council) and what he considered to be breaches of development control.  Together, Mr and Mrs C raised a number of concerns regarding the operation of the Depot and public access and matters concerning the operation of a café and bicycle hire business (the Business).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council, as planning authority, failed properly to exercise their powers of development control and enforcement both with regard to the general planning situation at the Depot and with regard to temporary planning consents for the Business (not upheld);
• (b) the Forestry Commission, as developers, allowed activities to commence ahead of obtaining planning consent and made errors in their proposals to the detriment of Mr and Mrs C (partially upheld to the extent that some activities began before planning consents were granted); and
• (c) the Forestry Commission, as owners of the Depot and landlords of the Business, failed to act with diligence in dealing with issues of indecency, noise, wind blown dust and disturbance to Mr and Mrs C at anti-social hours (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.