Local Government

Overview

The complainant Ms C raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s response to the presence of a group of travellers who had set up camp near her business.  Ms C said that the Council's contractors had left the gate open which had allowed the travellers to gain access to the site.  Ms C further complained about the way that the Council handled her complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council failed to act in accordance with their policies (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council's contractors left the gate open which allowed the travellers to gain access to the site (no finding); and
• (c)        the Council failed to handle Ms C's complaints in a reasonable manner (not upheld). 

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr D) raised concerns about the handling by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for a site adjacent to this home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council did not:

• (a)        have proper regard to site levels in the development (not upheld);
• (b)        ensure that appropriate plans were made available to enable neighbours properly to gauge the effect of the proposed development on their privacy (not upheld); and
• (c)        insist that the play area for the development was incorporated within the development rather than adjacent to existing housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

Ms C's children were removed from a School (School X) in Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) area, and Ms C was unhappy about the standard of communication from the Council in response to her concerns about this.  Following completion of the Council's complaint procedure, Ms C complained to the Ombudsman that the communication during the complaints process and following the Council's final decision was also inadequate.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that communication from the Council in response to Ms C's concerns about her children's removal from School X and the subsequent handling of her complaint was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)         ensure that information given to complainants at the end of each stage of the complaints process is sufficient to allow them to consider whether or not to proceed;
• (ii)        emphasise in guidance to relevant staff that when faults have been identified, consideration is given to making an appropriate apology and information given of any action taken to improve Council process and procedures as a result of their complaint; and
• (iii)       formally apologise to Ms C for the failing identified by the Panel on 2 December 2005.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) complained that information on a sign at the gates of a cemetery was inaccurate.  They had based their decision to have their child interred in the cemetery on the information on this sign and other information supplied to them by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the information on the sign at the gates of the cemetery, which played a large part in Mr and Mrs C's decision to have their child interred there, was inaccurate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)         reconsider their decision not to close the cemetery gates in light of the discrepancy between the decision and the Rules, and thereafter install signage that accurately reflects the security of the cemeteries and ensure that the Rules are compatible with the outcome of the decision; and
• (ii)        addresses the specific injustice caused to Mr and Mrs C by apologising to them for the distress caused by the misleading signage and, whilst reconsidering their decision as noted in (i) above, the Council take action to ensure that paragraph 36 of the Rules is properly enforced.  This could take the form of regular security checks being made in cemeteries outside manned hours or further liaison with the Police to ensure adequate patrols are made of cemeteries.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, alleged that there were a number of improper processes involved in the Council's decision to move the village of Freuchie into the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area for strategic planning purposes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)        failed to carry out local consultation before changing the local plan boundaries (not upheld);
• (b)        failed to take account of the complainant's views despite confirmation that they would do so (not upheld);
• (c)        misrepresented the situation (not upheld); and
• (d)        encouraged staff not to disclose information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the way Council officers handled a Planning Committee hearing and about the response of South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to his complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council unfairly denied Mr C, on behalf of the objectors whom he was representing, the opportunity to put points to the Council's Planning Committee on 30 August 2005 (not upheld); and
• (b)        the Council failed to properly deal with Mr C's complaints (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained on behalf of Mrs A, that there were a number of improper processes involved in Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to move the village of Freuchie into the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area for strategic planning purposes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)        failed to carry out local consultation before changing the local plan boundaries (not upheld);
• (b)        failed to take account of the complainant's views despite confirmation that they would do so (not upheld);
• (c)        misrepresented the situation (not upheld); and
• (d)        encouraged staff not to disclose information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Ms B, alleged that there were a number of improper processes involved in Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to move the village of Freuchie into the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area for strategic planning purposes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)        failed to carry out local consultation before changing the local plan boundaries (not upheld);
• (b)        failed to take account of the complainant's views despite confirmation that they would do so (not upheld);
• (c)        misrepresented the situation (not upheld); and
• (d)        encouraged staff not to disclose information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the kitchen installation and electrical upgrade to his home which were carried out by East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council).  These included the process by which the Council decided on the layout of the new kitchen; compensation for damage caused to their home when the work was being carried out and for the loss of their kitchen hood due to the upgrade; and the length of time taken by the Council to carry out and complete various repairs to the house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the kitchen installed by the Council is inadequate due to lack of adequate storage space and drawers (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not take adequate action to improve the kitchen which was installed in Mr and Mrs C's home (not upheld);
• (c)        compensation offered to Mr C for damage caused to his home and loss of their cooker hood was inadequate (not upheld);
• (d)        no re-decoration grant was offered to Mr C after installation of new central heating system (not upheld); and
• (e)        the time taken by the Council to carry out and complete various repairs has been unacceptably long (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

An MSP complained on behalf of his constituent, Mrs C, after she had been informed by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) that she could not hold both a card which gave her subsidised taxi transport and a card for the national concessionary bus pass scheme.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council would not allow Mrs C to have a local taxicard if she also held a national concessionary bus pass (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.