Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the tree preservation order (TPO) protecting trees on his land and The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s response, in relation to the site, to a Public Local Inquiry (PLI).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) revoked the consent granted to Mr C in 1998 to fell trees covered by a TPO without a valid reason and without informing him of this fact (upheld);
• (b) gave Mr C erroneous information about the legislation governing TPOs (upheld); and
• (c) gave incorrect information to the PLI about the management plan in place for the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) and trees on Mr C's land (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for wrongly informing him that the consent granted to him to fell the trees had expired;
• (ii) formally request the necessary information from Mr C on the trees to be felled so that their knowledge on the tree work is up-to-date;
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for giving him erroneous information about the legislation governing TPOs and about the statutory time limit placed on the removal of the trees;
• (iv) remind staff of the importance of giving accurate information in response to enquiries from members of the public;
• (v) apologise to Mr C for the fact that they gave incorrect information about the management plan to the PLI; and
• (vi) take steps to investigate how this error occurred and to ensure that officers are in possession of accurate information when responding to a PLI.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, said that she moved house on police and social work advice.  She complained that she had lost her Right to Buy discount, despite the fact that she was reassured after making specific enquiries on this point, that it would be unchanged.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C lost her Right to Buy discount, despite the fact that she was reassured, after making specific enquiries on this point, that it would be unchanged (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that if Mrs C wishes to purchase her council house, she is able to do so on terms equivalent to those which would have applied had she retained her Right to Buy discount.  Further, that the Council take steps to ensure that a process is put in place to provide tenants with written advice, in advance of any new tenancy, of possible changes to their Right to Buy discount.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) handled a complaint she made involving her elderly mother (Mrs A).

Specific complains and conclusions

The complaints against the Council which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Review Sub-Committee was not fully aware of the terms of her complaint and hence could not make a proper decision (not upheld);
• (b) the outcome of the Hearing was censored (not upheld); and
• (c) the outcome of the Hearing was unclear (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, in order to avoid dubiety, when the Council report their findings with regard to Review Sub-Committee hearings, care is taken to ensure that each identified head of complaint is specifically addressed and responded to.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns concerning an application for planning consent made by his neighbour to Falkirk Council (the Council) for formation of a driveway and the erection of a boundary fence on land which had previously been an area of open space traversed on its perimeter by a footpath.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  in considering his neighbour's application did not have proper regard to Mr C's objections (not upheld);
• (b)  did not have proper regard to central government advice in the form of Planning Advice Note 46 on planning and crime prevention (not upheld); and
• (c)  did not properly consider Mr C's requests that they close the footpath, or assist with heightening his boundary wall, or erect a high fence abutting his wall (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although not upholding the complaint the Ombudsman recommends that the Council consider whether it can use powers contained in the Antisocial Behaviour etc Act 2004 to address the problems of vandalism, graffiti and antisocial behaviour which Mr C is experiencing.

The Council accepted with qualification the recommendation.

Overview

The complainants were unhappy that Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority) had allowed an unauthorised development to take place, that access to their properties had been affected, and with how the Park Authority had dealt with the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure by the Park Authority to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised development of a pathway (not upheld);
• (b) failure by the Park Authority to stop a vehicle turning circle being used as a car park (not upheld); and
• (c) poor enquiry and complaint handling (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Park Authority:

• (i) formally notify the conservation charity that the pathway near to Mr C and Mr D's homes is unauthorised (see paragraph 9), explain to them in detail why this is the case, and advise that any future development undertaken by the charity within the National Park must go through the proper planning process. The Park Authority should mention this specific case as an example so that the charity is aware that if plans change from those initially envisaged, they must consider whether planning permission should be sought and seek further advice from the Park Authority. This is in line with the Park Authority's Enforcement Policy (see paragraph 11). A copy of this formal notification should be sent to Mr C, Mr D and the Ombudsman; and
• (ii) review its complaint handling procedures.

The Park Authority have accepted the recommendations and are currently reviewing the complaint handling procedures as part of an organisation-wide governance review.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about how the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) dealt with a planning application for demolition of the existing bungalow and construction of a two storey house on a site which borders the rear of her property to the south and how they dealt with her complaint about it.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) disregarded Mrs C's objections (not upheld);
• (b) did not adhere to their own policies in determining the application (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to deal with Mrs C's complaint appropriately (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) failed to correct an error on her council tax account, which led to incorrect demands and a summary warrant being issued against her.  Mrs C was also concerned that her complaint had not been handled appropriately and in line with the Council's complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to correct, despite three attempts to do so, an error on Mrs C's council tax account, which led to incorrect demands and a summary warrant being issued against her (upheld); and
• (b)  failed to handle Mrs C's complaint appropriately and in line with their complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council provide training for their staff on the terms of their complaints procedure and on the importance of following that procedure when complaints and concerns are raised by members of the public.  The Council should also bring this report to the attention of all staff dealing with council tax matters, in order to ensure that the type of repeated errors that occurred in this case are less likely to occur in future.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns relating to the way in which The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had dealt with his correspondence and subsequent appeal in relation to council tax liability, and the way in which his complaint about this matter had been handled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council's:

• (a)  response in not treating Mr C's letter of 6 December 2005 as an appeal was unreasonable (upheld); and
• (b)  administration of Mr C's correspondence and investigation of his complaint was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  introduce a system to record all council tax appeals on receipt.  Target dates should be set to ensure that all appeals are actioned within ten days of receipt, and where appropriate cases are referred to the Valuation Appeals Committee within two months of receipt, unless additional information has been requested.  Management information should be produced to provide assurance to senior managers that management and legislative targets are being met, or to identify the need for remedial action to be taken in good time where the targets have not been met.  The Ombudsman asks that the Council inform her on the introduction of this recommendation; and
• (ii)  review their complaints handling process, introduced in 2006 to ensure it properly identifies the root causes of complaints and uses this information to identify service improvements.

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

Overview

The complainant, Miss C, complained about the way in which Dundee City Council (the Council) imposed a payment levy in respect of an inspection of her late brother's headstone.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to advise Miss C, in advance, of her liability to pay an inspection levy and blamed a monumental mason for not informing her about it (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council delayed in responding to Miss C's request for details about the inspection and the information she was given was incorrect (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  in responding to queries, ensure that care is taken when making a response and that all issues are addressed.  Similarly, when internal information is passed to members of the public, it should be clearly understandable; and
• (ii)  apologise to Miss C for their errors and oversight.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that East Lothian Council (the Council) had not responded adequately to the requests of a sporting organisation (the Sporting Organisation) and that, when the Sporting Organisation complained about this, the Council did not respond within the stated timescales.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  unreasonably failed to take action to obtain Anti Social Behaviour Orders against named persons (not upheld); and
• (b)  did not respond to the Sporting Organisation within stated timescales (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.