Local Government

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the planning advice given to him concerning a plot of land he wished to purchase.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was not given an explanation for the reasons why the development plot was affected by a change of circumstances or why the definitive advice given to him in October 2004 did not apply (not upheld);
• (b) Mr C's objections to planning permission were not taken into account and he was not advised that planning permission was granted on 6 April 2006 (upheld); and
• (c) the Council delayed in responding to Mr C's correspondence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise to staff that care should be taken in responding to correspondence and that replies given to members of the public address the concerns raised and be made in a timely fashion.  She also recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him from the outset that planning permission had been granted.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, complained on behalf of her sister (Ms A) that Inverclyde Council (the Council)'s Social Work Department had failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised about the behaviour of Ms A's former partner towards their children.  Ms C pursued this through the Council's complaint procedure and made written and oral submissions to a Complaints Review Committee (the CRC).  The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the CRC's consideration of this matter was inadequate and did not take into account all relevant evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that guidance to CRC members and relevant staff clearly indicates the importance of careful drafting in the report, to ensure that the decision is fully recorded;
• (ii) ensure that, in future, any extension to the time limits, as set out in the Directions, is agreed by the parties; and
• (iii) apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in this report.

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 Ayrshire Council (the Council) tried to extinguish the equestrian rights of way over a pathway where such rights existed and where the landowner had placed barriers to prevent horses from using the pathway.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to maintain the right of way as per their responsibilities under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (upheld);
• (b) delayed in seeking an Extinguishment Order in respect of the right of way (upheld); and
• (c) failed to pass the matter to the Scottish Executive for determination within a reasonable timescale (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) take prompt action to ensure that it complies with its statutory obligations under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 in relation to the pathway; and
• (ii) introduce a robust procedure to ensure that it administers its responsibilities under the Countryside (Scotland ) Act 1967 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 within acceptable timescales.

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

Overview

Two complaints were submitted on behalf of four households whose properties shared a rear boundary with a site (the Site) which was developed for housing.  The complainants raised a number of concerns regarding the handling by West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for the Site submitted by a developer (the Developer) and what they saw as unauthorised development.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a) the Developer complied properly with the statutory neighbour notification procedure (not upheld);
• (b) the planning applications included full details of the proposed ground levels and associated engineering works (not upheld);
• (c) proper account was taken of possible encroachment, loss of privacy and light, removal of existing trees and the impact of noise on amenity (not upheld): and
• (d) road safety implications were considered (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council take action to secure the early installation of bollards and fencing which they earlier identified as desirable.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and informed the Ombudsman that they would contact the Developer to complete the early installation of the bollards and fencing mentioned in paragraph 25 of the report.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding her housing circumstances, particularly with regard to her request to North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) for re-housing from her previous home, their handling of her request for a mutual exchange, and their refusal to provide appropriate aid and adaptations in her current flat and to take measures with regard to the presence of asbestos.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not properly respond to Mrs C's request for re-housing because of threats to her son (not upheld);
• (b) unreasonably requested that Mrs C sign an undertaking not to request adaptations in her current flat (partially upheld);
• (c) infringed Mrs C's human rights and her rights as a disabled person by failing to install adaptations following her move (partially upheld); and
• (d) unreasonably failed to repair or remove damaged asbestos panels in Mrs C's bathroom (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mrs C for the inconvenience caused to her by failing to have proper regard to her assessed needs.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent made by his neighbour (Mr N) for alteration to and extension of his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to ensure that Mr N complied with the requisite notification of his proposals (partially upheld);
• (b) failed to take action on a neighbour notification received by Mr C on 16March2006 which was clearly invalid (partially upheld);
• (c) failed to respond to Mr C's request of 25 April 2006 for information on when the Application would be considered and if he could address the Development Quality Sub-Committee (upheld); and
• (d) compiled a report on the Application without a site visit by a planning officer and which contained errors of fact and incorrect interpretation of their own policies (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr C for their identified failings.

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

Overview

Mrs C is disabled and had been assessed by her local Council as requiring Community Care.  She chose to receive Direct Payments and employ her own personal assistants to provide this, under a national scheme administered by each local Council.  In 2005 she moved to live in the South Ayrshire Council (the Council) area.  Mrs C was concerned about the Council assessment of her needs under the Council's Direct Payments.  In addition, Mrs C was assessed as requiring adaptations to the bathroom in her new home.  The Council said they would support an application for a grant for a wet-floor shower area.  Mrs C complained that the Council had not taken into account her need for a bath for health reasons.  This latter point was dealt with by a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) of the Council and not upheld.  Mrs C said she felt the CRC did not give her complaint adequate consideration and that the recommendation for regular reviews was not followed by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the CRC did not give Mrs C's complaint about the Council's bathing assessment adequate consideration (not upheld);
• (b) Mrs C was not allowed to make her case in full to the CRC and was not allowed to take breaks (not upheld);
• (c) the CRC's recommendations were not followed and reviews of Mrs C's needs were not carried out sufficiently regularly (not upheld);
• (d) the Council mishandled Mrs C's application for Direct Payments (not upheld);
• (e) the Council did not provide Mrs C with sufficient support to allow her to administer the Direct Payments (not upheld); and
• (f) the Council's response to her complaints about the Direct Payments was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the guidance given to members of staff preparing reports and documentation for CRCs to ensure that panel members are fully aware of all relevant legislation, guidance and policy and provided with all relevant documents held by the Council;
• (ii) highlight in guidance to CRC panel members that they should remain sensitive to the needs of disabled complainants; and
• (iii) use this complaint as a case study with complaints handling staff to emphasis the importance of dealing with complaints as a whole and of being flexible in their approach.

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

Overview

The complainant, referred to as Mr C, raised a number of concerns regarding planning and enforcement issues with The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council).  He remained dissatisfied with the Council's final response to his complaints and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Specific complain and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C's neighbour received planning permission to erect a sun room which breached planning guidelines (not upheld);
• (b) the Council advised Mr C that Permitted Development Rights (PDR) had been withdrawn, when in fact this was not the case (not upheld); and
• (c) the Council advised Mr C that the fence at the rear of his property required planning permission, only to advise him later that the fence did not require planning permission (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make a full formal written apology to Mr C for providing conflicting and confusing information in relation to the fence at the rear of his property; and
• (ii) consider ways of ensuring that relevant staff seek advice when complicated and sensitive situations arise.

Overview

The complainant, referred to as Mrs C in this report, complained about the delay by Dundee City Council (the Council) in notifying her of an outstanding council tax debt of £3,231.96.  She remained unhappy with the Council's final response to her complaint and asked me to investigate the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the delay by the Council in notifying Mrs C of a council tax debt (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mrs C for the delay in pursuing the debt between June 2002 and August 2005 and consider an appropriate payment arrangement to recover the debt properly due.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s introduction of resident parking bays on the street Mr C resides (the Street), which he said had been done without road safety assessments being carried out.  Mr C was also concerned that the decision to introduce the new parking bays did not take account of the fact that planning permission had been granted for a development (the Development) that led to 100 additional cars using the Street.  Mr C complained that the resulting situation was dangerous in terms of road safety.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) changes to parking on the Street were introduced without any road safety assessments being carried out by the Council (not upheld); and
• (b) the decision to make changes to parking did not take account of the fact that the Council had granted planning permission for the Development, which led to 100 additional cars using the Street (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.