Local Government

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.

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.