Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the way Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) responded to concerns a group of parents had raised about the running of a secondary school (the School).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not adequately investigate complaints brought by 30 parents about the School (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and Mr B) raised a number of concerns about the way an outline planning application (the Application) for the Highland Housing Fair (the Fair) had been handled by The Highland Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to engage in adequate consultation with Inverness South Community Council (ISCC) and guidelines for consultation were not followed (not upheld);
• (b) emails between Council officers, and Council officers and the applicant, show that the outcome of the Application was pre-judged (not upheld);
• (c) details of the Application did not appear in the Council's Weekly List (not upheld);
• (d) there was collusion in the planning process given that the applicant, Highland Housing Alliance (HHA), is funded by the Council (not upheld);
• (e) planning permission should not have been granted as the land was marked as Green Wedge (refers to land covered by Policy 41 of the Council's Local Plan) in the Inverness Local Plan (the Local Plan) (not upheld);
• (f) information (such as plot layout, house type and site analysis) which was available prior to the Inverness Area Planning Application Committee (the Committee) hearing on 30 January 2007 was not submitted to the Committee (not upheld);
• (g) the outcome of the Application was a foregone conclusion as shown by the fact that the Report to the Committee was dated 12 January 2007 (not upheld);
• (h) the Application inaccurately referred to the land in question as being vacant when it was in fact farmland (not upheld);
• (i) there should have been developer contributions for the site as there was no benefit to the community from the development (not upheld);
• (j) outline planning permission was granted prior to a report on road infrastructure being submitted by Transport Scotland (not upheld); and
• (k) a link road had not yet been built and the cap for housing was at 600houses (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about the handling by Fife Council (the Council) of their representations about breaches of a planning consent granted for change of use of adjacent premises (the Premises) to a restaurant/takeaway and for the installation of an external flue.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to enforce conditions attached to the planning consent which were imposed to protect the amenity of neighbours (partially upheld);
• (b) otherwise failed to resolve the effect on Mr and Mrs  C's amenity of noise and odours emanating from the Premises (partially upheld); and
• (c) took an unacceptable length of time to deal with Mr and Mrs C's complaints and did not keep them properly updated (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i) review the wording of conditions used in their planning consents with particular reference to the appropriateness of using a condition such as condition 3 with the present wording;
• (ii) actively continue to monitor compliance with the planning consent issued on 30 June 2003; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings in the Council's handling of their complaints.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s handling of his enquiries regarding outline planning permission for construction of a one bedroom single storey dwelling on his land adjacent to his home.  Mr C also complained that the Council had failed to correctly process a planning application by a neighbour (Mr N), to Mr C's detriment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) gave Mr C incorrect or misleading advice regarding his initial enquiries about an application for outline planning permission to build a one bedroom single storey dwelling adjacent to his property (not upheld);
• (b) gave incorrect status to Mr N's planning application, to Mr C's detriment (not upheld);
• (c) failed to deal with Mr C's initial planning enquiries within the correct timescales (partially upheld); and
• (d) failed to address the specific points in Mr C's letters and emails of complaint (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with his enquiry in accordance with Council guidance and provide feedback to the staff involved in this case on the timescales contained in the guidance; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for failing to adequately address all issues raised in his complaints.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding, and springing from, the way her daughter (Miss C)'s exclusion from a school (School 1) in Clackmannanshire Council (the Council)'s area was handled.  Mrs C had specific concerns about:  the exclusion process; the process for enrolling Miss C for her examinations; the way in which the possibility of Miss C attending a new school was handled; and the decision not to allow Miss C to go on a school trip.  In respect of all these complaints, Mrs C felt that she and her daughter had been treated unfairly by the Council and by schools within the Council's area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that

• (a) School 1 failed to provide Miss C with a date on which her exclusion would finish and on which she could return to School 1 (upheld);
• (b) School 1 told Miss C that she would not be able to return to School 1 until the outcome of her appeal was known. Miss C believed that she should have been allowed to return while her appeal was pending (not upheld);
• (c) School 1 failed to tell Miss C and Mrs C who would attend a meeting at School 1 on 6 February 2006 (upheld);
• (d) School 1 failed to inform the Director of Services to People that Miss C had been excluded (not upheld);
• (e) School 1 failed to give Miss C direct teaching input while she was excluded from School 1 for a month (upheld);
• (f) School 1 unnecessarily called a school in another Council's area (School 2) on 20 March 2006 despite the fact that Mrs C had already informed the Council's staff that they were moving to another town outwith the Council's area (not upheld);
• (g) School 1 released Miss C's personal information to School 2 even though, at that time, she did not attend there (not upheld);
• (h) School 1 intentionally and unnecessarily caused alarm to School 2 by telling them about Miss C and her family on 20 March 2006, which gave a bad impression of Miss C at School 2 where she was not yet a pupil (not upheld);
• (i) School 1 intentionally sent a record of Miss C's exclusion to School 2 on 21 March 2006 even though the Council had lifted the reference to exclusion from the file prior to 15 March 2006 (not upheld);
• (j) School 1 failed to inform School 2 that Miss C had returned to School 1 on 27February 2006 (not upheld);
• (k) School 1 failed to enrol Miss C with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) at the same time as enrolling all other pupils (not upheld);
• (l) School 1 failed to enrol Miss C with the SQA towards the end of April 2006 when School 2 called urgently regarding Miss C's exam timetable (not upheld);
• (m) School 1 failed to inform the SQA of Miss C's change of address when enrolling her with the SQA at the end of May (not upheld);
• (n) School 1 failed to provide satisfactory reasons why Miss C was not allowed to go on a school trip in May 2005 and unfairly discriminated against Miss C by not allowing her to go on the trip (not upheld);
• (o) the Council 'nagged' Mrs C and Miss C to consider enrolling at two other schools in the Council's area (School 3) and (School 4), even though Mrs C had made clear that she wished Miss C to return to School 1 (not upheld);
• (p) the Council refused to accept Mrs C and Miss C's decision to return to School 1 during a meeting on 22 February 2006 (not upheld);
• (q) the Council inappropriately called School 4 about Miss C without the consent or knowledge of Miss C or Mrs C (not upheld);
• (r) the Council inappropriately requested that Mrs C enrol Miss C at School 4 when Mrs C had never thought of enrolling her there (not upheld);
• (s) the Council repeatedly pressed Mrs C and Miss C to reconsider enrolling Miss C at either School 3 or School 4, causing emotional harm to them (not upheld);
• (t) School 3 failed to respond to Mrs C's email requesting that Miss C attend School 3 (not upheld);
• (u) School 3 ignored Mrs C's emails in which she said that she had changed her mind and wanted Miss C to stay at School 1 (not upheld);
• (v) School 3 inappropriately sent an email to Mrs C requesting a meeting with the rector of School 3 even though Mrs C had already stated that she wanted Miss C to return to School 1 (not upheld);
• (w) School 3 inappropriately requested, over the telephone, that Mrs C attend a meeting even though she had already informed School 3 and the Council that Miss C wanted to go back to School 1 (not upheld); and
• (x) School 3's actions referred to in complaints (v) and (w) were done with the intention of putting Miss C off returning to School 1, possibly on the instructions of the Council (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) either review their Exclusion Policy to match their normal practice or take steps to ensure that their normal practice is in line with their current Exclusion Policy;
• (ii) apologise to Miss C for not providing her with the direct teaching input to which she was entitled during her exclusion; and
• (iii) remind relevant officers at School 1 of the requirements of the Exclusion Policy so that, in future, arrangements are made for pupils with a Stage 3 exclusion to be provided direct teaching input.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) administered his assessment for Council Tax Benefit.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) took an unacceptable amount of time to resolve this issue (upheld); and
• (b) failed to investigate Mr C's complaints against two members of staff and also failed to follow the Council's complaints procedure when they received his formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) write to Mr C to apologise for the delays in assessing his claim for Council Tax Benefit; and
• (ii) reinforce to staff the importance of ensuring that formal complaints are considered in line with the Council's complaints procedure.

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