Local Government

Overview

A complaint was referred to us from a Member of the Scottish Parliament (the MSP) on behalf of his constituents (Mr and Mrs C) about the way their application for special case consideration for housing transfer had been handled by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  lost an earlier transfer application from Mr and Mrs C (no finding);
• (b)  delayed unduly in putting Mr and Mrs C's request for special case consideration before the appropriate committee (upheld);
• (c)  made an inappropriate offer of re-housing after Mr and Mrs C were granted special case consideration (not upheld); and
• (d)  unfairly removed their special case status for refusing that offer (not upheld)

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the delay identified in paragraph 33; and
• (ii)  should take steps to review their record-keeping with regard to special case consideration to avoid recurrence.

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

Overview

Mr C complained that the Council did not correctly follow their own Roads Development Guide in determining the appropriate sightlines required for a junction near his home.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not correctly follow their own Roads Development Guide (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council clarify in the Guide that they can relax the standards to reflect specific local conditions.

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

Overview

The complainant raised a number of issues regarding his tenancy of a City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) house and also repairs that were carried out to the house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not follow procedure when letting the house (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council did not carry out necessary repairs efficiently (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (, Mr C), complained about the way in which South Ayrshire Council (the Council) handled his planning application and alleged that it failed to receive fair and proper consideration.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C's planning application failed to receive fair and proper consideration (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that in the future the Council bear in mind the possible consequences to planning applicants from any changes they may make in their internal policy and, that they seek to keep them (or their agents) advised.

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

Overview

The complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman by a Member of the Scottish Parliament (the MSP) on behalf of the complainant (Mr C) on 19 April 2006.  Mr C raised concerns about North Lanarkshire Council's (the Council) disposal to a charitable trust (the Trust) by means of excambion (exchange) of land (the Yard) on which his lock-up garage is located.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to inform Mr C and his neighbours about the transfer of ownership (upheld); and
• (b)  Mr C and other users of the Yard were not given the opportunity to purchase or to lease the Yard with access rights (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr C and his neighbours for not informing them directly of the change in ownership.

The Council confirmed that they accepted that recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that he had been unfairly excluded from The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s offices and that his council tax file had been sent out to him without his permission and in inadequate packaging.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  unfairly excluded Mr C from their offices (upheld); and
• (b)  sent Mr C his council tax file in the post against his express wishes and in inadequate packaging (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  adopt a detailed policy for dealing with alleged instances of inappropriate behaviour on the part of customers and ensure that decisions to restrict access to Council offices or otherwise restrict contact with an individual are: properly documented; preceded, where appropriate, by a warning; well justified and communicated clearly to the individual concerned; and subject to internal review and appeal mechanisms; and
• (ii)  apologise to Mr C for the unfair way in which he was excluded from their offices and for failing to provide him with an adequate and detailed explanation regarding the grounds of his exclusion.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns that Fife Council (the Council) had not produced a finalised Draft Local Plan within the stated timescale and that they had failed to alter the wording of the online Draft Local Plan to give a true picture of the planning proposals.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to produce a finalised Draft Local Plan within the stated timescale (not upheld); and
• (b)  failed to alter the wording of the online Draft Local Plan to give a true picture of the planning proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mr C complained about the sale of land owned by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) and on which he had a loom shed (the Shed).  Mr C considered there was no proper consultation surrounding the sale.  He was also unhappy that he was not given the opportunity to purchase the land and was served with a notice to demolish the Shed.  In addition, Mr C said that he had found it difficult to have his complaints considered by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the sale of the land was not carried out appropriately by the Council (partially upheld);
• (b)  Mr C should not have been served with the notice to demolish the Shed (not upheld); and
• (c)  Mr C's complaints were not handled adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for the fact that he was wrongly informed that a consultation had taken place and he had been excluded from this;
• (ii)  review the Council's procedures about land sales with reference to notification and consultation;
• (iii)  clarify in their guidance to staff on their complaints procedure that complainants need to be kept informed of the process and that formal complaints should always be dealt with through the complaints process; and
• (iv)  apologise to Mr C for the poor handling of his complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, complained that her client, Mr A, was treated unfairly in the way his Council Tax arrears were pursued.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  it was not reasonable to pursue Mr A's Council Tax arrears after six years without notification (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council failed to link Mr A's old account to his new one, thus making it difficult to pursue his arrears (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make in this case.

Overview

The complaint was made by Mr C on behalf of his adult daughter (Ms C).  Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the handling by Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) of Ms C's applications for council tax benefit and housing benefit.  The Council accepted that there had been faults in the way they handled Mr C's complaint and the sum of £500 was accepted by him.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  provided Ms C with a receipt that her applications for council tax benefit and housing benefit were properly documented but later asked for additional information (not upheld);
• (b)  subsequently wrongly determined Ms C's applications stating that she had a nil entitlement because she had not completed the requisite forms (no finding); and
• (c)  delayed unduly in responding to Mr C's letter of complaint of 14 June 2005 to the Chief Executive (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman notes that the sum of £500 has been offered and accepted by Mr C in respect of the delay in handling the formal complaint.  She accepts the personal apology tendered to herself and notes that an explanation and apology were given direct to Mr C.  Finally she also notes the steps taken by the Council to avoid re-occurrence of their initial misunderstanding which happened in this case.