Local Government

Overview

The complainant Mr C raised a complaint on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) about Dundee City Council (the Council)'s handling of refurbishment work carried out to her Council home. In particular, he was aggrieved at Mrs A being expected to return to her home when it was uninhabitable, the delay in carrying out the redecoration work and the inadequate compensation for both the period of absence and damage to carpets. He also complained that the Council did not take the particular circumstances relating to Mrs A into account in relation to her decant arrangements and that they failed to respond adequately to all issues when he raised his complaint.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the extenuating circumstances relating to Mrs A should have resulted in consideration outwith the Council's Decant Policy and the Council failed to provide adequate compensation for the period of absence from the property (partially upheld);
• (b) the cost of replacing damaged carpets exceeded the level of compensation provided by the Council (not upheld);
• (c) the property was uninhabitable on completion of the works (upheld); and
• (d) the Council failed to respond adequately to issues raised in correspondence by Mr C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologises to Mr C for their failure to provide a copy of the relevant Policy on request;
• (ii) gives consideration to the individual and particular circumstances relating to Mrs A and her decant situation;
• (iii) provides Mrs A with a decision in writing in relation to her individual and particular decant situation;
• (iv) apologises to Mr C for their failure to respond fully and appropriately to his letter of 21 December 2004; and
• (v) provides a written response to Mr C that either addresses the questions raised in his 21 December 2004 letter or explains why such a response will not be forthcoming.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C), the parents of a teenage son (Child C) with special educational needs, raised a number of concerns about Child C's education while he attended three of the City of Edinburgh Council's (the Council) schools (School A, School B and School C) and about the way their complaints had been handled by the Council. In their initial submission they made 17 specific complaints. These were the subject of an earlier detailed report on which both Mr and Mrs C and the Council commented. In light of those comments, it was decided not to pursue further four specific heads of complaint and to group together others in this amended report.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed in their statutory duty to offer appropriate full-time education to Child C suitable for his needs (no finding);
• (b) failed to provide Mr and Mrs C as parents with adequate and sufficient information to make an informed choice of school for Child C and to ensure smooth transitional arrangements and liaison between schools (not upheld);
• (c) failed, following Child C's exclusion from School C in September 2002, to take timely and appropriate steps to deal with the exclusion and to support Child C and Mr and Mrs C (upheld);
• (d) failed to deal in an appropriate and timely manner with Mr and Mrs C's placing request for Child C to attend a residential school in England (partially upheld); and
• (e) dealt inappropriately with two complaints Mr and Mrs C submitted (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman considers that the report highlights the difficulties in providing for a child where special educational needs are compounded by behavioural difficulties and the frustrations experienced by parents striving to achieve the best possible provision of education services to meet their child's needs. While the Council's Education Department generally had proper regard to their obligations, the lack of local options available undoubtedly had an important bearing on their responsiveness. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the problems confronted by Mr and Mrs C in securing appropriate suitable education to meet Child C's needs;
• (ii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for their failures identified in the report; and
• (iii) review the implementation of the Council's complaints procedures particularly with regard to services for children and young people.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which the Council handled a planning application for change of use consent for a property close to her own.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to follow proper procedures and law, in that the application for change of use was considered before the expiry date for representations (not upheld);
• (b) ignored Ms C's material representations (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to submit the application back to Committee although material representations were received in advance of the expiry date, thus depriving Councillors of all the relevant facts (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Ms C complained about Falkirk Council (the Council)'s handling of her application for housing benefit.  She applied in March 2006 and said she did not receive a determination until October 2006.  She felt there was excessive delay and was also concerned about an internal email which she said contained inappropriate comments.  In addition, she complained that she had received an eviction notice on the grounds of outstanding rent arrears, when the Council were still processing her housing benefit application.  Ms C was in Council rented accommodation at the time.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) mishandled Ms C's application for housing benefit (upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure she was not sent a notice concerning eviction proceedings[1] (upheld); and
• (c) had allowed inappropriate email correspondence referring to Ms C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review their Rents System to consider whether they could introduce a process of monitoring manual holds on accounts.

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

 [1] This was not an eviction notice but a notice for recovery and possession which is an essential preliminary to eviction proceedings.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about how East Lothian Council (the Council) prepared proposals for the development of a play area immediately adjacent to his flat and their alleged undue delay in taking action on noise nuisance and detriment to privacy he is experiencing.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) in preparing their proposals for the play area, failed properly to apply their own Local Plan policies and to anticipate the likely detrimental effect to residents in the development in which Mr C resides (not upheld); and
• (b) delayed unduly in taking appropriate action on noise nuisance and detriment to privacy, preferably by relocating the play area (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that following the period of their proposed monitoring, relevant officers of the Council report to the appropriate Committee on options for the play area including the residents' request that it be closed and relocated elsewhere.  The Council informed me that they would agree a programme of monitoring with affected property owners and would report the results, together with any residents' views to the Council's Cabinet.  The report would include a recommendation as to what further action, if any, should be taken with respect to the location and operation of the play area.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that Fife Council (the Council) inappropriately pursued him for a support charge in connection with his sheltered housing.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council inappropriately pursued Mr C for a support charge in connection with his sheltered housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the actions of Glasgow City Council (the Council) in relation to the introduction of a Controlled Parking Scheme (CPS) in certain areas of Glasgow.  Mr C had specific concerns about elements of the consultation and decision-making processes as well as the eventual introduction of the CPS.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) inappropriately asserted, prior to the consultation process, that the CPS would go ahead, and acted to that end before the committee vote (not upheld);
• (b) failed, during the statutory consultation period, to display and maintain all notices and information sources required by statute (not upheld);
• (c) mis-stated the reasons for the proposed measures (not upheld);
• (d) employed inappropriate methods during the consultation process that had the effect of reducing the number of objections registered in time and misrepresenting the number of submitted objections (not upheld);
• (e) inappropriately discussed the matter at a meeting of the Roads and Lighting Committee Convener's sub-committee (not upheld);
• (f) failed to implement the scheme as voted for by the Roads and Lighting Committee (not upheld); and
• (g) inappropriately failed to notify certain organisations of the proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding Renfrewshire Council (the Council)'s decision to advertise a piece of land (the Land) for sale and to declare it surplus to the Council's requirements.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council acted in an unethical, unprofessional and underhand manner by placing a newspaper advertisement offering the Land for sale without any consultation or notification of interested parties (not upheld);
• (b) the Council placed undue pressure on members of the Council's Planning and Development Board (the Board) by stating that income from the sale of the Land would be used to augment the Council's future budget (not upheld);
• (c) the Land should not have been offered for sale without the Board's approval (not upheld); and
• (d) the Land is officially designated as woodland and has been adopted as an area of leisure and recreation by virtue of 35 years historic usage (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was overseeing work being carried out at her father’s house by contractors employed by East Lothian Council (the Council).  Her purse was stolen whilst the work was being carried out.  Mrs C complained that the Council did not take adequate steps to ensure that their contractors’ employees were suitable to be allowed access to the homes of vulnerable people.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to ensure that their contractors, who had access to the homes of vulnerable people, including Mrs C's father, had sufficient procedures in place to ensure that their employees were suitable to do so (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) works with its Adult Protection Committee to establish good practice guidelines for Council and contractor employees working in the homes of vulnerable people; and
• (ii) considers including in its revised Corporate Procurement Procedures manual, guidance on the protection of vulnerable people when work is being carried out on their homes.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised three specific complaints against East Renfrewshire Council (the Council) that they had not adequately handled their objections to, and thereafter approved the erection of, a two storey extension to the rear of a neighbouring bungalow.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to take account of Mr and Mrs C's objections to a neighbouring extension (not upheld);
• (b) did not allow Mr and Mrs C to attend meetings about the proposed extension (not upheld); and
• (c) made a decision based on overshadowing calculations which were flawed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.