Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that Midlothian Council (the Council) had failed to consult with the relevant community council (the Community Council) about the closure of leisure centres in the area.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not consult adequately, and as required by the Council's Code of Conduct for the Exchange of Information, with the Community Council in relation to proposals to close two leisure centres (upheld to the extent that the Council were unable to justify their position).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council properly consider whether it is necessary to consult with community councils when taking decisions which could reasonably be viewed as matters of importance to a particular area.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was of the view that The Highland Council (the Council)’s procedure for dealing with housing improvement grants was discriminatory against disabled people as her application for a grant was refused because she had arranged for improvement works on her home to begin before the grant was approved by the Council.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the process for assessing Mrs C’s retrospective housing grant application was neither clear nor robust (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that Aberdeen City Council (the Council) failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by him regarding the anti-social behaviour of neighbours, and that the Council's response to his complaint about this was inadequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was inaction or inappropriate action taken by the Council in response to Mr C's complaints about anti-social behaviour (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council's response to Mr C's complaint about their alleged inaction or inappropriate action was inadequate and inappropriate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) had not given proper consideration to a planning application for a listed building, had not dealt with enquiries properly or satisfactorily, that an informative guide produced by the Council was deficient and that there were flaws in the Council's complaint handling processes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not give proper consideration to the planning application (not upheld);
• (b) the Council did not deal with Mr C's enquiries properly or satisfactorily (not upheld);
• (c) the Council's publication 'A Guide to the Planning Decision-Making Process' was deficient (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council's complaints process was flawed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for not responding appropriately to his point in letters of 19 March 2005, 28 March 2005 and 2 April 2005 advising that he had not received the promised letter of 11 March 2005.

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