Local Government

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.

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.