Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) said that East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) did not administer her council tax account correctly.  When she made various enquiries about the status of her account and ultimately complained to them, they did not resolve the issue to her satisfaction and failed to advise her of their complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the communication and advice from the Council was poor (upheld);
• (b) record-keeping by the Council in relation to council tax was inadequate (upheld); and
• (c) the Council's complaints handling was poor (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) reminds their staff to ensure the accuracy of account details before taking action on council tax accounts;
• (ii) apologises to Miss C for their errors and the confusion caused; and
• (iii) makes a payment to Miss C equal to the disputed sum of £242.00.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C), and two others, raised concerns about the way in which their claims for damage to their cars in a school car park during a storm were handled by The Moray Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not handle Mrs C's complaint about her car damage appropriately (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the way Stirling Council (the Council) had addressed her complaints relating to an email (the Email) and note of a telephone conversation she received as part of an information request.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to adequately investigate and take action regarding Mrs C's complaint about the Email (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C), an owner-occupier, raised a number of concerns regarding the way her requests to Fife Council (the Council) for repair and improvements to the development where she resides were handled.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate and timely action in respect of Ms C's requests for repairs and improvements outlined in her letter of 6 November 2005 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a complaint against Angus Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of his complaint about the anti-social behaviour of his neighbours and his housing transfer request.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) inadequately handled Mr C's complaint about his neighbour's anti-social behaviour (not upheld); and
• (b) inadequately handled Mr C's housing transfer application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about Aberdeen City Council (the Council)'s handling of his objection to his neighbours planning application for an extension to the neighbouring property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to consider Mr C's request for a site visit by the Committee (upheld);
• (b) dissatisfaction with the formal reply to Mr C's complaint about the failure to consider the site visit request (not upheld); and
• (c) failure to consider the planning application properly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council ensure that appropriate procedures are in place so that the Committee is made aware of any requests for site visits that are made, and responds to them appropriately.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised a number of concerns regarding Falkirk Council (the Council)'s consideration of her objections to a planning application in respect of an extension to a neighbouring property.  Mrs C believes that the Council failed to provide accurate information when considering the application and also provided inaccurate information to her concerning the details of her local Councillor.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to properly consider the potential issues of overshadowing and loss of amenity caused by the extension (not upheld);
• (b) planning officers failed to consider the impact of the development on the surrounding conservation area (not upheld);
• (c) the planning report on which the decision to grant consent was based was inaccurate as it was considered that a neighbouring area of ground contained trees protected under a Tree Preservation Order when they did not (not upheld);
• (d) the development would establish an unacceptable precedent (not upheld);
• (e) the Council held inaccurate records on Councillors details (not upheld);
• (f) planning officers failed to refer the application to committee (not upheld); and
• (g) the extension was contrary to the Local Plan (not upheld);

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding water penetration into her Council rented property.  Mrs C complained that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) did not carry out their duties when implementing repairs to her bathroom ceiling, which was damaged due to water ingress from a leak in the roof of the building.  Mrs C also claimed that given the severity of damage to her bathroom, she and her family should have been provided with temporary accommodation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's actions in carrying out relevant repairs were inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to provide temporary accommodation (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

In October 2004 a planning application was submitted to Dundee City Council (the Council) by the agent of the applicant.  The applicant sought planning permission to build a detached house in the side garden of an existing house on a residential street.  Two neighbours (Mrs C and Mrs A, and together as the complainants), along with others, objected to the planning application.  The complainants subsequently raised concerns about the planning report relating to the proposed development and the role of the Council in facilitating discussions between themselves and the applicant.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a flawed report relating to the proposed development was submitted to the Development Quality Committee (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to facilitate discussion between the applicant and neighbours (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council develops a written protocol that sets out the Council position and guides the actions of officials following deferral of a planning application to allow discussion between the parties involved.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) is a tenant of the City of Aberdeen City Council (the Council).  He complained to the Ombudsman on 30 March 2007 about the Council's response to his reports regarding defects in the timing of the lighting in the stairway of his block.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed since March 2006 to rectify a problem with the timing of the communal lighting system in Mr C's block (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.