Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns against Fife Council (the Council), that the Council had not correctly handled a planning application (the Application) submitted by a third party, for the erection of dwelling houses and flats.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) councillors were not informed of the facts connected to the Application (not upheld);
• (b) potential problems were brought to the attention of Council officials in 46 letters of objection, however, these objections did not appear to have been brought to the attention of councillors (not upheld); and
• (c) access problems for vehicles, including refuse and emergency vehicles, were not properly considered (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that West Lothian Council (the Council) failed to conduct the required consultation before installing traffic calming measures in his neighbourhood and that the Council failed to warn him of the aftermath of their installation as he reported that they were causing noise and vibration from traffic.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the installation of traffic calming measures took place after inadequate consultation with local residents and without warning of the possible consequences (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, believed The Highland Council (the Council) had acted outwith procedures and in an incompetent and inconsistent way in regard to a planning application for a wind farm development (Application A).  He complained that:  the Council's actions had contravened Scottish Natural Heritage guidance; Environmental Impact Assessment guidance and European Union directives; the Council had approved the application on the basis of incompetent assessments; the Council had inappropriately circumvented proper procedures; and the Council had not acted consistently in comparison with the actions they had previously taken regarding other applications that were, in his view, similar.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council acted:

• (a) outwith procedures in regard to Application A (not upheld);
• (b) incompetently in regard to Application A (not upheld); and
• (c) inconsistently in regard to Application A (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of issues concerning Perth and Kinross Council (the Council)'s support for his daughter (Ms C) attending school.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council failed to:

• (a) develop and implement an adequate strategy to support his daughter in school (not upheld);
• (b) substantiate their position that his daughter had made significant progress and that a high level of resources and support had been given to her (not upheld);
• (c) independently assess his complaints (not upheld); and
• (d) respond to his queries in a timely manner or provide an explanation for the delay (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council advise her when their new complaints handling system is fully implemented

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), a tenant of Falkirk Council (the Council) with a lock-up garage on council land, raised a number of concerns regarding permissions given to owners of a house (Mr and Mrs D) to facilitate the building of a rear extension to their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to consult with users of the lock-up garage site (the Site) with regard to permissions that they had given to facilitate construction work at Mr and Mrs D's house (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to expedite action after they had been informed that users of the Site were being obstructed and inconvenienced (partially upheld); and
• (c) officers of the Council gave misleading information to residents through the local councillor (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council look at the circumstances of the consent granted in this case with a view to ensuring that future consents anticipate that activities related to the siting of a skip on Council land are regulated and the consequences of non adherence with any conditions are stated.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns in respect of his neighbour's application to East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) to construct an extension at the gable of his house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to have regard to their Local Plan guidance on privacy and intervisibility of windows in granting planning consent to the application (partially upheld);
• (b) failed to take enforcement action to ensure that an upstairs en-suite bathroom window was provided with obscure glazing (partially upheld); and
• (c) delayed unduly in responding to Mr C's concerns (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for their shortcomings; and
• (ii) explore with Mr C and his neighbour the introduction of screening to preserve Mr C's privacy from overlooking from his neighbour's downstairs windows.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.  They have indicated with regard to (ii) that if that outcome can be achieved, the Council's Planning Service would, in the interests of customer relations, bear such reasonable costs as might arise.

Overview

Scottish Borders Council (the Council) built a new footpath adjacent to the complainant (Mrs C)'s property.  Mrs C complained that the position of this footpath had adversely affected her privacy by directing pedestrians onto the land in front of her house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council built a footpath adjacent to Mrs C's property which directed pedestrians onto her land (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's response to Mrs C's complaint about this was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) apologise to Mrs C and her husband for not consulting with them about the impact of the new footpath on their privacy; and
• (ii) ensure that there is appropriate consultation with residents likely to be affected by 'Safer Routes to School' projects.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that with a replacement central heating system that was installed in his home by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) failed to meet his specific needs.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C claimed that with a replacement central heating system that was installed in his home by the Council failed to meet his specific needs (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.