Local Government

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.

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.