Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that his granddaughter (Ms A) had been disadvantaged in applying for a Council property because of errors made in the application process.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) wrongly suspended Ms A's application for housing, thereby jeopardising her chance of being allocated a house (not upheld); and
• (b) incorrectly awarded too many overcrowding points to Ms A (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) confirm to this office the steps taken to prevent repetition of the incorrect suspension of Ms A's housing application;
• (ii) confirm that work to correct the computer system error has been completed satisfactorily; and
• (iii) apologise to Ms A for the distress caused by the incorrect award of overcrowding points.

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

Overview

Mr C worked for a charity which helped disabled people to buy their own home.  He complained, on behalf of Mrs A, that changes in Aberdeenshire Council (the Council)'s policy on Housing Improvement Grants were unreasonable and had disadvantaged Mrs A.  Mrs A had made an application for a grant to help her build an extension to her property and Mr C also complained about the length of time it had taken the Council to progress Mrs A's application.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's changes in their grants award policy were unreasonable (upheld); and
• (b) there was undue delay in processing Mrs A's grant application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that, where significant changes to policy are being made, advice on the legal implications of those changes is appropriately taken and recorded; and
• (ii) provide Mr C and the Ombudsman with comments on their current policy on Housing Improvement Grants in the light of the applicable legislation.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) submitted objections to a proposed development which was to be erected near their home.  The objections were submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) within the required time frame, however, the objections were not considered when the application was reviewed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to consider objections when granting approval for a planning application (not upheld); and
• (b) failed to handle the complaint in line with the complaints procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council repeat their initial offer of meeting reasonable legal expenses incurred by Mr and Mrs C as suggested in earlier correspondence.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by The Moray Council (the Council) of an application by his neighbours (Mr and Mrs N) to alter and extend their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to conduct a competent and impartial evaluation and assessment of Mr and Mrs C's objections to Mr and Mrs N's planning application (partially upheld);
• (b) negotiated what they perceived to be a solution to the issue of privacy without involving Mr and Mrs C and to the exclusion of other solutions (not upheld); and
• (c) did not properly handle their complaint (not upheld).

As the investigation progressed, issues arose concerning the implementation of the planning consent.  I, therefore, agreed with Mr and Mrs C and informed the Council that we would investigate that the Council:

• (d) did not take appropriate action in respect of deviations by Mr and Mrs N from the approved plans (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise for the failing identified under head (a)
• (ii) ensure that action is taken to resolve the issue of the oil storage tank as soon as possible; and
• (iii) review whether and how they should involve affected parties in reaching decisions on issues of privacy.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained when Stirling Council (the Council) changed the method and frequency of his refuse collection service.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) acted inappropriately by changing the waste collection service (not upheld); and
• (b) used an arbitrary figure for the number of people required before a household could apply for a larger bin (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, as part of their review of the service, the Council should consider how five person households are coping with the arrangements.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent for housing on a nearby site, the proposed access to which is immediately to the side of Mr C's home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) mishandled Mr C's representations on the Application (upheld);
• (b) prepared a report on the Application prior to the expiry of the period for representations (upheld);
• (c) failed to meet Mr C's requests for information on their report and the minutes relating to the consideration of the Application (upheld);
• (d) officers took an over-active interest in promoting the applicant's interests particularly regarding access (not upheld); and
• (e) planning officers inappropriately issued the outline consent without further reference to the Council's Planning Committee (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review their procedures:

• (i) in order to ensure that in similar future circumstances objectors have confidence that their timely representations are fully considered and reported on; and
• (ii) on issuing reports for consideration where the period for representations has not expired.