Local Government

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.

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.