Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the way Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) had consulted on a proposed Traffic Order which restricted waiting and loading on the street where he lived.  He complained that the notification of the proposed Traffic Order was insufficiently clear and that this prejudiced his ability to raise objections.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the notification of a proposed Traffic Order was inadequate and this led to a reduced opportunity for Mr C, as an affected resident, to participate in the consultation on the proposals (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for shortcomings in the notification of the proposed Traffic Order; and
• (ii) undertake a review of the way it notifies proposed Traffic Orders to reflect the concerns raised in this report, giving particular attention to the wording of advertisements and the notification of residents considered likely to be affected by proposed changes.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the way The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) handled an application for a skatepark in Inverleith Park.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council were unreasonable in the way they treated Ms C as an objector to a previous application for the same project (not upheld); and
• (b) there were failings in the way the Council handled Ms C's complaints about this matter (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Ms C for failing to give a full response to her complaint; and
• (ii) confirm that recent improvements to their complaints handling system address the issues highlighted in this report.

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

Overview

Mr C, a housing advice officer, complained on behalf of Ms A.  Ms A had five children and had been in private rented accommodation.  She had been on the list for housing with East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for some years when she was assessed as unintentionally homeless in September 2004.  Thereafter, Ms A was in temporary Council-owned accommodation until September 2005, when she returned to private rented accommodation.  Ms A also returned to the general housing list at this time.  Mr C complained about a number of aspects of the Council's handling of Ms A's application for housing, including:  the standard of temporary accommodation; the Council's decision that Ms A's refusal of permanent accommodation was unreasonable; changes in the Council's allocation policy, which he said disadvantaged Ms A; and the refusal to grant Ms A additional social points once she had returned to the general list.  Mr C was also concerned about the way her complaints had been handled and about the way the Council had dealt with Ms A's application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council mishandled Ms A's application for housing, following her assessment as unintentionally homeless (partially upheld);
• (b) the Council did not respond adequately to Ms A's concerns about this (upheld); and
• (c) the Council mishandled Ms A's application for a DHP (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide her with a copy of the results of the review of the inventory documentation;
• (ii) ensure staff who are involved in the award of discretionary social points are aware of the comments in this report;
• (iii) ensure that all staff dealing with complaints know how to process these effectively;
• (iv) review guidance given to staff on recording contact with members of the public to ensure that all significant contact is recorded;
• (v) apologise to Mr C for their failure to respond to his letter of 1 July 2005; and
• (vi) apologise to Ms A for the failures in their complaint handling.

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

Overview

Ms C said that she had to replace the shock absorbers on her car following a journey around Edinburgh when she had to negotiate a number of bumps and potholes.  She raised a claim for compensation with The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) and also raised the general issue of the condition of the city's roads with them.  Ms C was unhappy that her claim was refused and with the response she had received to her concerns about road maintenance.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not correctly handle Ms C's claim for compensation (upheld); and
• (b) did not respond appropriately to her concerns (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) pass a copy of this report and the information provided by them relating to location X and location Y to their Claims Handlers for re-consideration of the claim;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the delays in processing her claim;
• (iii) ensure that all organisations working on their behalf are aware of the Council's complaints procedure, and the Ombudsman's role within this, and are given guidance on how to respond if complaints are made relating to work undertaken for the Council;
• (iv) review actions taken in response to previous reports and ensure that these would also remedy the problems identified in this report or undertake appropriate action to do so; and
• (v) apologise to Ms C for the faults in the complaint handling identified in this report.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the Council notify her when the recommendations have been implemented.

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.