Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) of a planning application (the Application) for the residential development of an adjacent site which was determined by their Development Control Committee (the Committee) on 17 January 2007.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to request that amended plans submitted by the applicant in September 2006 were the subject of further neighbour notification (not upheld);
• (b) although Mr C had himself submitted objections to earlier proposals on 17July 2006, he was not personally informed that the Application would be considered by the Committee on 17 January 2007 (not upheld); and
• (c) the report to the Committee made reference to Mr C's letter of objection although he was not notified of the plans subsequently submitted and considered (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the assessment of her mother's (Mrs A) financial assets by East Lothian Council (the Council).  Mrs C considered the Council had acted improperly in including the nominal value of her mother's home which she had transferred ownership of, for 'love, favour and affection', to her family 11 years prior to entering the care home.  Mrs C also argued that the Council's complaint process was flawed to the extent that the legal advice it offered to the Social Work Complaints Review Committee (SWCRC) was deficient.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's decision to include the value of the property in their calculation of Mrs C's financial assessment was administratively flawed (upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to provide adequate legal advice to the SWCRC who upheld Mrs C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council undertake a new financial assessment of Mrs A's assets, disregarding the nominal value of the property disposed of in 1994.

The Council have accepted this recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Further Action

There is a considerable overlap in the issues raised in this case with one previously reported on by this office in December 2006 (Report No 200503530).  That report and this raise issues about the scope for different interpretations of a number of aspects of the relevant Scottish Guidance throughout Scotland and the potentially inequitable outcome of this varied interpretation.  The reports both also highlight the lack of an appropriate independent appeal mechanism to deal with financial assessments.  This report also raises the question of how the value of an asset is calculated as it appears that again there is no specific guidance on this and the potential for uncertainty and geographical variation.  The previous report was forwarded to the Scottish Executive Health Department by the Ombudsman's office to highlight our concerns.  This case (and a number of others currently with this office) illustrate that these concerns persist and once again the Ombudsman's office will forward a copy of this report to the Scottish Government Health Directorates to draw the matter to their attention and seek their views on how best to resolve the difficulties being encountered.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about how West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) had handled her requests for housing repairs.  Mrs C also complained that the Council had not given her application for housing transfer the correct number of waiting points.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council failed to:

• (a) expedite Mrs C's requests for housing repairs (not upheld); and
• (b) award the correct number of waiting points to Mrs C's request for housing transfer (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s decision to relocate temporary accommodation for young homeless people to Main Street, High Blantyre was taken without adequate consultation with local residents.  Mr C said that the decision to create similar accommodation for young homeless people at Blairtum Park, Rutherglen had been preceded by extensive consultation with the local community.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to engage in proper community consultation regarding the relocation of young homeless persons' accommodation to Main Street, High Blantyre, despite having done so for a similar project at Blairtum Park, Rutherglen (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about how Stirling Council (the Council) had handled complaints she submitted to them following incidents involving her younger son (Child C) and the owner/driver (Mr D) of a coach contracted to take Child C and other pupils on the return trip from a secondary school in Stirling (the School) to their local community (the Village).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) following the first incident involving Child C, the Council did not take the action they previously stated they would take against Mr D (upheld);
• (b) the Council failed properly to investigate the incidents involving Mr D and Child C (partially upheld); and
• (c) an internal suggestion that Mr D be suspended and another driver be used for the run was not followed up (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Council apologise to Mrs C for not following up on their officer's statement that a reprimand would be issued to Mr D;
• (ii) the Council apologise to Mrs C for the way her initial complaints were handled; and
• (iii) should in the future the situation arise that only Mr D's coach is used for conveying pupils home from the School to the Village, the Council offer mediation to explore the basis on which Child C could return to using the service.

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

Overview

Mr C had objected to a planning application relating to a neighbour's extension.  This was granted and building work began.  Mr C became concerned that the extension did not comply with the planning consent grant, was of poor standard and he objected to an application for a variation of the planning consent submitted by his neighbour.  Mr C was also unhappy that he did not receive a final response to his complaints from the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to deal correctly with a planning application and a subsequent application for variation of the application (not upheld);
• (b) did not respond appropriately to concerns raised during the building process (not upheld); and
• (c) did not respond in full to Mr C's formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) enforce to all staff dealing with the public, in relation to planning and building regulation matters, the importance to communicate with them as clearly and accurately as possible;
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for their delay in responding to him and his MSP;
• (iii) review their complaints procedure to ensure that they meet their own standards; and
• (iv) review their procedures for responding to the Ombudsman's office to ensure that they do so without undue delay.

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

Overview

Mr C had objected to a planning application submitted by his neighbour (Mr D) for an extension.  This was granted and building work began.  Mr C was unhappy that planning consent was granted and also became concerned that the extension did not comply with the planning consent granted and was of poor standard.  He objected to an application for a variation of the planning consent submitted by his neighbour and complained about the way his application was handled.  Mr C was also unhappy that he did not receive a final response to his complaints from the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to deal correctly with a planning application and a subsequent application for variation of the application (not upheld);
• (b) did not respond appropriately to concerns raised during the building process (not upheld); and
• (c) did not respond in full to Mr C's formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the Department's guidance to staff dealing with complaints raised about building works to ensure that, where appropriate, one named member of staff be identified to deal with the complainant's correspondence;
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for their delay in responding to him and his MP;
• (iii) review their complaints procedure to ensure that they meet their own standards; and
• (iv) review their procedures for responding to the Ombudsman's office to ensure that they do so without undue delay.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues with Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of two planning applications submitted for the erection of a dwelling-house on a site close to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council in their handling of the planning applications acted unreasonably and ignored the views submitted by the objectors (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was dissatisfied with The Moray Council (the Council)'s handling of his complaints relating to a planning consent for his holiday park and their actions in serving an enforcement notice for breach of a condition of that consent.  He alleged that there was delay (in excess of three months) in responding to his representations and that they failed to reply fully to the seven points of complaint he had raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) delayed in responding to his representations (upheld); and
• (b) failed to reply fully to his representations (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their enforcement procedures and produce guidelines which can be audited; and
• (ii) take steps to meet with Mr C to discuss his outstanding concerns.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s response to her request for repairs to the floor coverings in her flat.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Ms C received conflicting advice about whether the replacement of the linoleum in her flat was her responsibility (upheld);
• (b) there was a lack of clarity about what sort of support would be offered to Ms C by Care Housing (not upheld); and
• (c) there were delays in dealing with Ms C's formal complaint to the Council (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.