Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that Fife Council (the Council) granted planning consent for the construction of a mobile telephone mast in a residential area.  The mobile telephone company erected the mast in the incorrect place, and then applied retrospectively for planning consent, this was refused on the grounds of visual intrusion.  Mrs C believes that the original application should also have been refused on these grounds.  She has also complained that the Council claimed to have had a moratorium on the construction of mobile telephone masts on Council property at the time preventing them from offering an alternative site to the mobile telephone company.  This she believes, was not true.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to give appropriate consideration to the terms of the local and structure plans with regard to scale and character when considering the original application (not upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure proper neighbour notification (not upheld); and
• (c) gave misleading advice on a Council moratorium on the erection of mobile telephone masts (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned a housing association wishing to lease premises from Inverclyde Council (the Council).  The housing association's former Director (Mr C) believed that the Council's handling of the matter was inefficient and unhelpful, resulting in unnecessary financial loss to the association.  In addition, Mr C was unhappy with how the Council dealt with the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) alleged failure by the Council to act in a timely and efficient manner (upheld);
• (b) alleged failure by the Council to adhere to agreements reached during the complaints handling process (no finding); and
• (c) the Council's complaints handling process was of a poor standard (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that Estates staff adhere to the criteria set out within use classes as they relate to the Council's asset base when placing different types of business in suitable locations, while maintaining flexibility where appropriate;
• (ii) draft guidance for Estates staff on regular and documented communication with potential tenants, as well as how to make such communication clear and unambiguous. They should consider including an indication of the approximate timescales for dealing with enquiries, and explicit statements that costs incurred by potential tenants for conducting assessment of suitability of premises are to be borne by the potential tenant, and that pursuing an offer of tenancy from a potential tenant is exploratory and not a commitment on the part of the Council to let a specific property. In addition, the Council should consider whether or not it is appropriate to leave premises keys with potential tenants for an unspecified and indefinite period of time;
• (iii) ensure that in future a jointly agreed record of meetings between complainants and Council staff is made, in particular recording any action points and deadlines, agreements reached, or unresolved matters; and
• (iv) complaints process must be clear on the role of Ward Councillors, in particular that they have no formal involvement in complaints handling. The Council should also remind staff of the importance of adhering to complaints handling timescales and of drawing the complaint to a formal conclusion.

The Council have agreed to the recommendations and put forward proposals on how to address them.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the response of Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) to his reports of dog fouling in a public area immediately adjoining his property and at the way the Council responded to his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not take effective action to prevent dog fouling on an area adjoining Mr C's home (not upheld); and
• (b) mishandled Mr C's formal complaint (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) continue to carry out appropriate surveillance of the area in question; and
• (ii) review their complaint handling in this instance with a view to clarifying to complainants at the outset the distinction between a request for a service and a complaint of dissatisfaction about delivery of a service.

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

Overview

Messrs C (the Complainants), the directors of a building company, complained about the way in which Falkirk Council (the Council) handled their request for timber decking to be laid as a Non Material Variation (NMV) to planning permission.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to deal with the Complainants' verbal request that decking be considered as a NMV to planning permission (upheld);
• (b) a formal application for decking to be considered as a NMV failed to receive a timely response (upheld); and
• (c) the Council failed to hold proper file notes (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) emphasise to staff the importance of acknowledging documentation sent to them. Also, that if in the process of consideration decisions are taken about how matters are being handled, these are also shared with the complainant;
• (ii) make the Complainants a fulsome apology for their oversights with regard to the complaint and their failure to deal with the application in a timely manner; and
• (iii) emphasise to staff the importance of properly recording meetings, including the date of the meeting, any decision(s) reached, the names of those involved, the name of the person recording the note and the date the note was written. Thereafter, ensure that the note is correctly placed in the file.

Unfortunately, the Council have declined to accept the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) said that Midlothian Council (the Council) notified her, three days after her father's funeral, that her family's three-interment burial lair would not be able to accommodate a third interment.  Her father (Mr A) was the second person to be interred in the lair (Mr A's mother being the first) and it was his and Ms C's mother's wish to be buried together.  Ms C feels that her family should have been made aware of this situation prior to her father's funeral so that alternative arrangements could have been made to ensure both of her parents could be interred in a lair together.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to give advance notification of the fact that the complainant's family's three-interment lair would only be able to hold two interments (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review their procedural document, and include in it guidance to staff on what action should be taken should lairs be found to be unsuitable for their intended number of interments upon opening, whatever the reason for the problem.

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

Overview

Mrs C complained to Renfrewshire Council (the Council) about the condition of a neighbouring property in January 2006.  The Council) issued a defective building notice (the Notice) on this property in February 2006.  Mrs C was unhappy that the Council did not enforce the Notice when her neighbour did not undertake the work within the time specified.  She also said that she had difficulty pursuing her complaint about this and she was also unhappy that the Council had not kept her informed of progress.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council did not:

• (a) enforce the Notice (not upheld);
• (b) inform Mrs C of their actions in relation to the Notice (not upheld); and
• (c) respond appropriately to Mrs C's concerns (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) arrange regular reviews of the effectiveness of their policy on issuing and enforcing defective building notices;
• (ii) consider whether they should provide more information to members of the public about such notices and, in particular, what is likely to happen when a notice is issued; and
• (iii) reinforce in their guidance to staff that they should ensure the Council respond as a whole organisation to complaints when issues raised affect more than one department.

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