Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C), a flat owner in a Category B listed tenement building, raised a number of concerns about the handling by Dundee City Council (the Council) of development proposals concerning an adjacent property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not take action to ensure that building works would not harm the integrity of the listed building (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) received debt advice from North Ayrshire Council (the Council), and complained that they had not advised him properly about the actions of one of his creditors.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's debt advice service gave inadequate advice in relation to one of Mr C's debts (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to respond correctly to a complaint about this matter (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) had failed to handle a number of his complaints in line with their Complaints Procedure.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to handle Mr C's complaints in line with the Complaints Procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council consider whether or not to invoke their Unacceptable Actions Policy against Mr C, given that his communication approach has significantly contributed to the problems around the handling of his complaints.

One of the reasons for the Council to invoke the policy is that they must consider whether or not their current handling of Mr C's complaints represents a good use of public resources.  If action was to be taken to more effectively manage Mr C's correspondence, I believe that would be a strong case to show that the Council are taking into consideration the principles of 'Best Value'.  The Council have to seriously consider whether or not their management of Mr C's complaints and correspondence is an effective use of public resource.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of issues with Fife Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of a planning application submitted for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling-house adjoining the complainants' property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council in their handling of the planning application failed to consider the effects of the proposed development on Mr and Mrs C's home in relation to privacy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.