Local Government

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained on behalf of Mr A in connection with matters relating to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the procedure followed by the Council in relation to the PAN 41 hearing on 6 January 2006 was insufficiently transparent to the public (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to acknowledge or respond to a petition submitted in April 2006 and refused to allow it as a late objection (not upheld);
• (c)  during the consultation process relating to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan, the Council failed to communicate effectively with the local community (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Council failed to take the community's wishes into account (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council ensure that the role of the Public Service and Licensing Committee is clarified within the Council.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have acted on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), complaining on behalf of the aggrieved (Mrs A), was concerned that East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) failed to provide Mrs A with appropriate advice on two occasions when she attended the Council's Housing Department for advice prior to selling her home and making a homelessness application.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to provide Mrs A with appropriate advice on two occasions when she attended the Council's Housing Department for advice prior to selling her home and making a homelessness application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the refusal of his application for a repairs grant, to Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council), after the Council had fully spent their funding for discretional repairs grants.  Mr C stated that the Council had led him to believe that a discretional repairs grant would be awarded, and that the Council had subsequently failed to honour this commitment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council's refusal of Mr C's application for a repairs grant (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council led Mr C to believe that a repairs grant would be awarded (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C), complaining on behalf of an elderly couple (Mr and Mrs A), raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s alleged failure to take appropriate and timely enforcement action to remove unauthorised air conditioning units that had been erected directly outside Mr and Mrs A's window.  Ms C was concerned about the noise produced by the units and their impact on visual amenity.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to take timely enforcement action against the developer after complaints were first raised in October 2004 (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to take enforcement action after the East Area Development Committee (the Development Committee) granted enforcement powers on 27 September 2005 (not upheld);
• (c)  failed to inform the complainant and the aggrieved that the original retrospective planning application had been withdrawn (not upheld);
• (d)  failed to serve an enforcement notice in a timely fashion after the Development Committee decided to take enforcement action in June 2006 (not upheld); and
• (e)  failed to carry out the decision of the Development Committee that the owners of the site (the Developers) should have only 28 days to appeal as they gave the Developers three additional days (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  put measures in place to ensure that, when complaints are received about alleged unauthorised developments or when requests for enforcement action are received, complainants are provided with an explanation of the Council's duties in relation to enforcement and of the options generally available to deal with unauthorised development; and
• (ii)  should ensure that, where possible and appropriate, complainants' expectations are managed with regard to likely outcomes and timescales and are kept up to date with significant developments.

The Council have provided me with a copy of a new Planning Enforcement Charter, which adequately addresses the issues raised in my recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that Clackmannanshire Council (Council 1) failed to continue Free Personal Care (FPC) payments for her aunt (Miss A) following her move to a new residential home (Care Home 2) in Fife.  Mrs C also complained that Council 1 adopted a very aggressive and bullying attitude to family members when they had requested that Miss A be moved to residential care nearer to her family (in Fife).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Council 1 failed to provide Free Personal Care payments for Miss A following her move to Fife (not upheld); and
• (b)  Council 1 failed to properly administer arrangements for Miss A's move (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1 and Fife Council (Council 2), as a matter of urgency, prepare and submit an appeal for determination of the ordinary residence of Miss A by the Scottish Ministers in terms of sec 28 of Circular No. SWSG 1/96.  Following such a determination appropriate payments should be made to Miss A and (if necessary) Council 2 so that all parties are returned to the position they should have been in from 22 December 2005.  The appropriate Council should then take ongoing responsibility for Miss A's FPC payments.

Council 1 and Council 2 have both accepted this recommendation and will take the necessary steps to request a review by the Scottish Ministers.

Overview

The aggrieved (Ms C) raised concerns that Dundee City Council Social Work Department (the Social Work Department) revealed personal information about her health to her early teenaged child (Child C) after Ms C believed she had been assured that they would not.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Social Work Department divulged personal information about Ms C to her child, contrary to her request and their assurances (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned about various aspects of The Highland Council (the Council)'s Public and Private Partnership School Building Project (PPP2) and decisions made regarding the replacement of Dingwall Academy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to undertake public consultation between 2001 (when the project was first raised as a possibility) and December 2003 (when outline planning approval was subject to public consultation) (not upheld);
• (b)  the Ross and Cromarty Planning Committee (the Planning Committee)'s decision to grant outline planning approval was taken to anchor the PPP2 project and with a view to finding a solution to educational provision for schools throughout the Highlands, rather than being based on site specific and local planning considerations (not upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to take account of an Electoral Reform Society Ltd managed referendum which took place in February 2005 and which asked the question 'Are you in favour of the new Dingwall Academy being built on the existing playing fields?'  73.5% voted 'No' (not upheld);
• (d)  the process by which the Planning Committee reached its decision was flawed because members of the community who attended the planning meeting of 16 February 2004 did not get the chance to make any representations without having previously submitted written objections (not upheld);
• (e)  the Council failed to ensure that Dingwall Community Council (the Community Council) sought and represented local opinion (not upheld);
• (f)  the Council failed to advise the Chairman of the Community Council to step aside given his alleged conflict of interest (not upheld);
• (g)  the Council failed to consider advice from the Scottish Executive  when they decided to build a new school on a flood plain (not upheld);
• (h)  the Council failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before making their decision to site the school (not upheld);
• (i)  in correspondence with the complainant, the Council failed to clarify who made the decision to site the school on the playing fields or the rationale for making that decision (not upheld);
• (j)  the Council failed to follow their own guidelines by not having a Sustainable Design Statement for the project (not upheld);
• (k)  the Outline Business Case (OBC) that was presented to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee (the ECS Committee) in its consideration of a course of action regarding PPP2 was too short, one-sided, inaccurate and contradictory to allow the ECS Committee to reach a well informed and balanced decision (not upheld); and
• (l)  the Planning Committee's decision to approve the reserved matters application on 11 April 2005 went against the requirement of the Local Plan (the Local Plan) (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained on behalf of his parents (Mr and Mrs A) about the actions of a Sheriff Officer and the way the City of Edinburgh Council subsequently responded to his concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr and Mrs A were wrongly pursued for arrears of council tax (upheld); and
• (b)  the Council did not handle Mr C’s complaint about this matter correctly (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns against Fife Council Social Work Department (the Council) that they refused to pay transportation costs of Home Care staff to attend his mother-in-law (Ms D), at the property Mr C specifically leased for Ms D, when she was discharged from hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council acted incorrectly when they advised Mr C he had to pay privately for the transportation costs incurred by the Home Care staff in attending to Ms D (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council's decision not to pay transportation costs resulted in an impasse that meant no home care was provided for Ms D over a considerable period (not upheld); and
• (c)  the Council refused to allow their carers to attend the elderly who live in off-main-road accessed accommodation, due to the possibility of vehicle damage occurring (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained of misleading advice given to him and his ex-wife (Mrs A) on 1 June 2004 by a finance officer of The Highland Council (the Council) which he said led Mrs A to regard Mr C's house as her main residence and to sell her house  to their financial detriment.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which I have investigated is that a council finance officer at an interview in Mr C's home on 1 June 2004 gave Mr C and Mrs A misinformation which led Mrs A to sell her home at a price less than she expected and for Mrs A, Mr C and their adult son (Mr B) to sustain financial loss (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

Although not upholding the complaint, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the circumstances of the complaint to establish whether in similar circumstances an earlier conclusion could be reached on the question of residence for benefit purposes and whether there were additional steps they could take to help ensure that claimants are fully advised about regulations and entitlement.

The Council have accepted the recommendations.