Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of complaints that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had not acted properly in relation to works that had been undertaken at his property and that these actions had resulted in unnecessary financial loss, taken up a disproportionate amount of his time and energy and caused him considerable stress.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to ensure that the expense was reasonably incurred (not upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure that the extent of the work carried out was reasonable and not excessive (not upheld);
• (c) failed to correspond within a reasonable period with regard to various correspondence relating to the matter (not upheld);
• (d) failed to correspond for a period of more than one year with regard to the matter (not upheld);
• (e) failed to confirm the outcome of the 'appeals' of the cases (not upheld);
• (f) failed to take positive action to try to produce a solution (not upheld);
• (g) failed to provide an effective Customer Complaint process (upheld);
• (h) failed to issue Statutory Notices and corresponding invoices correctly (not upheld);
• (i) failed to issue Statutory Notices timeously (not upheld);
• (j) failed to adequately warn Mr C and other owners and occupiers that scaffolding was due to be erected outside their properties (not upheld); and
• (k) used threatening and bullying language with regard to pursuing payment of the invoices sent in September 2005 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the confusion and omissions in their handling of his complaints; and
• (ii) make clear to complainants what the various stages in their complaints process are, which department they should expect to receive communication from, how to progress their complaints through the process, indicate clearly when the Council believe that the process has been completed and what they can do if they remain dissatisfied in each specific case.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) were using incorrect school boundaries when deciding which children qualified for free school transport.  The result of this was that the children concerned had to apply every term for 'privileged places' rather than being granted free places automatically.  These privileged places are awarded at the discretion of the Council and are dependent on places being available on the existing transport.  Mrs C is concerned that the Council have altered the school boundaries without the required statutory public consultation being carried out.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council are not using the correct school boundaries when establishing school placements and free school transport (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council carries out the actions that they have suggested to address the issues raised in this complaint, these are:

• (i) notify all effected parents of their intentions to guarantee school transport for their children until the end of their schooling; and
• (ii) ensure that the Catchment Area Review Group consider the issues raised in this report to ensure that a long term solution to the school boundary problems is achieved.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that Midlothian 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 policy in relation to anti-social behaviour was flawed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was delay by the Council in responding to correspondence from Mr C and his representatives (partially upheld);
• (b) there were flaws in the Council's anti-social behaviour policy/procedures (not upheld);
• (c) there was inaction or inappropriate action taken by the Council in response to complaints about anti-social behaviour (partially upheld); and
• (d) the Council handled Mr C's complaint poorly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide her with a copy of the current service standards for acknowledging and responding to all modes of contact and correspondence, both for complaints and for general enquiries;
• (ii) consider putting more information into the guidance for staff dealing with anti-social behaviour reports, and into the public domain, on the corroboration standards required before action may be taken against alleged perpetrators;
• (iii) update her on the monitoring and evaluation of the Council's Antisocial Behaviour Strategy (the Strategy) since October 2005;
• (iv) using the benefit of officers' experience since 2005  consider reviewing, possibly with the use of case studies, how they determine when complaints about anti-social behaviour from one or more sources in close proximity have progressed from intermittent and episodic to an ongoing and consistent anti-social behaviour situation;
• (v) provide her with the information and guidance now issued with the Neighbour Problems Diary sheets as this should indicate how and when they should be used, and in particular should explain how the Council will determine the sheets' validity as evidence. In addition, the Council should develop a fuller statement of what they regard as acceptable corroboration and what they regard as a credible independent witness. It might help to explain this to members of the public by using anonymised/fictionalised case studies on the anti-social behaviour section of the Council's website;
• (vi) provide her with information about the Council's mediation service, both in terms of guidance for officers on how and when it should be offered to the parties involved in an anti-social behaviour situation, as well as how information about the service is made available to the public; and
• (vii) update her on the review of the Strategy, on whether or not the Antisocial Behaviour Order guidance in the Housing Officer's Handbook has been clarified, and on how the Council is currently dealing with noise nuisance.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) and his wife run a holiday cottage business in an island village in the area of the Highland Council (the Council).  Mr C claimed that the level of parking in adjacent premises used as a guesthouse and as a restaurant had led to access problems for him and his clients and that the Council had not ensured an appropriate level of parking provision for the adjacent premises.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed over a number of years to ensure that the proprietors of the adjacent premises provided adequate car parking (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.