Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A).  She said that Aberdeen City Council (the Council) allocated Miss A a flat in 2002 that they had failed to designate as amenity housing due to an administrative failure.  In February 2006, Miss A applied to the Council to buy the property.  The Council wrote to Miss A on 10 August 2006 to advise that her application had been refused.  They said that the flat had facilities that were substantially different from those of a normal property.  They stated that it had been designed and adapted for occupation by a person of pensionable age, whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the flat.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Miss A has not been able to purchase her Council flat under the right to buy scheme, because of an administrative failure by the Council (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman considers a proposal made by the Council to Miss A to be a reasonable response and is satisfied as far as is possible that the Council have now taken steps to address the complaint.  The Ombudsman also welcomes the Council's assurance that they will take a similar approach in response to other complaints of this nature.  In light of this, the Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) handled two applications for outline planning permission.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council raised numerous obstacles delaying the progress of the applications. In particular, Mr C claimed that the subject of road access was only mentioned seven months after the submission of the first application (not upheld);
• (b) the Council reneged on an agreement reached in September 2006 that, if the access road was included in the application, they would validate it and recommend it for approval (not upheld);
• (c) the Council failed to advise of a change of policy (Policy ENV14) and the likely effects of that on Mr C's application (not upheld);
• (d) Policy ENV14 is insufficiently specific, leaving it open to differing interpretations (not upheld); and
• (e) Council officers applied Policy ENV14 inconsistently in different Council areas (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mr C complained that Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) did not inform the complainant's co‑proprietors when issuing a Defective Buildings Notice that, because their property is listed, the work would have to meet listed building requirements.  He also complained that the Council failed to provide him with assistance to repair the building.  Furthermore, he was dissatisfied with the handling of his formal complaint to the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) shortcoming in the serving of a Defective Buildings Notice (partially upheld);
• (b) failure to provide assistance in the repair of a listed building (not upheld); and
• (c) shortcoming in the handling of a formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their current recording practices, in respect of keeping a note of discussions from visits;
• (ii) decide what action is required, in respect of the outstanding Defective Buildings Notice; and
• (iii) send an apology to the complainant in recognition of any difficulty he experienced as a result of the lack of clarity in their previous complaints procedure.

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 in which Glasgow City Council (the Council) dealt with Mr A's application for Housing and Council Tax Benefit.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A's claim for Housing and Council Tax Benefit made in January 2006 was not processed until July 2006 (upheld);
• (b) payment was not received until 2 August 2006 (partially upheld);
• (c) the Council wrongly denied that they were aware that Mr A was suffering distress as a consequence of their delay (upheld); and
• (d) a change of circumstances reported to the Council in August 2006 was not processed until November 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council consider favourably any reasonable claim for out of pocket expenses that Mr A may make and apologise to him for their failure to recognise his distress and for their delay in determining his claim.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and acted on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about how Stirling Council (the Council) had handled his reports about the condition of windows in his council flat.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that Mr C's windows are in a good state of repair (not upheld);
• (b) failed to check on the adequacy of repairs carried out in February 2006 (upheld); and
• (c) failed to accept the advice of a window contractor that the windows in Mr C's flat should be replaced and upgraded (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for their failing with regard to inspection.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) are the visually impaired parents of two children, the younger of whom (Child A) is visually impaired.  North Ayrshire Council (the Council) arranged transport to and from nursery school for Child A, with another child and a Council-employed escort.  However, Mrs C considered that, as Child A's mother, she should have been able to act as the escort.  She raised concerns about lack of comparability with her elder daughter's treatment, her younger daughter's right to be taken to nursery by her mother and denial of her own rights as a mother to take her daughter to school herself.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's transport arrangements should have included Mrs C as the escort (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.