Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about North Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning matter relating to a site adjacent to his property which had been the subject of a number of planning proposals.  He was aggrieved because the contractor carried out unauthorised works and he alleged that the Council delayed in taking enforcement action.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  delayed in taking action against the contractor (upheld); and
• (b)  delayed in taking action following the decision to serve an enforcement notice (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for failing to deal efficiently with his complaints; and
• (ii)  produce internal guidance on good practice in Planning Enforcement which should include advice for officers on the need to maintain properly documented records of their investigation of each case.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have confirmed that arrangements have been made to act on them.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by him and his wife (Mrs C) regarding the anti-social behaviour of two local residents and failed to consider witness statements and video evidence.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by Mr and Mrs C regarding the anti-social behaviour of two local residents including the consideration of witness statements and video evidence (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to formalise their complaint into the Council's Feedback Procedure at the correct time;
• (ii) ensure any future complaints by Mr and Mrs C are dealt with in accordance with current procedural requirements; and
• (iii) ensure that staff involved with complaints of the same or a similar type are adequately trained in current Council procedures.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was aggrieved at East Lothian Council (the Council)'s decision to require her to pay a £69 access charge in order to allow her gas appliances to receive an annual check.  She complained that the new procedure was not explained sufficiently to tenants and that the Council were unreasonable in requiring her to pay this given that she had made attempts to provide access.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council were unreasonable in requiring her to pay an access charge of £69 (not upheld); and
• (b)        the Council failed to explain sufficiently the new system to tenants (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)         in the particular circumstances which applied to Ms C, the Council reconsider their demand that she pay the £69 access charge; and
• (ii)        in this case, as there appeared to be some confusion about access visits and requests for access visits, the Ombudsman suggests that the Council review the terms of their standard letters and those of British Gas.

The Council have declined to accept the Ombudsman's recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the allocation of land between her tenancy and that of her adjacent neighbours (Mr and Mrs Z) who had purchased their council house in 1992 and at the erection of a fence by the Council in early 2006 which, she stated, had created difficulties for her in presenting her domestic refuse bin for uplift.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        neither the Council nor their predecessor informed Mrs C or her ex-husband of the land conveyed in 1992 to Mr and Mrs Z (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not inform Mrs C beforehand that they intended to erect a fence at the gable of her home (no finding);
• (c)        the Council's Area Housing Manager failed to keep an undertaking to get back to Mrs C after consulting with the Council's Cartographic Services (upheld); and
• (d)        the Council had not responded to the concern Mrs C had expressed about difficulties in presenting her domestic refuse for uplift (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council issue an appropriate letter of apology to Mrs C for their failure to get back to her on (c).

 The Council have accepted that recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the allocation of land between her tenancy and that of her adjacent neighbours (Mr and Mrs Z) who had purchased their council house in 1992 and at the erection of a fence by the Council in early 2006 which, she stated, had created difficulties for her in presenting her domestic refuse bin for uplift.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        neither the Council nor their predecessor informed Mrs C or her ex-husband of the land conveyed in 1992 to Mr and Mrs Z (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not inform Mrs C beforehand that they intended to erect a fence at the gable of her home (no finding);
• (c)        the Council's Area Housing Manager failed to keep an undertaking to get back to Mrs C after consulting with the Council's Cartographic Services (upheld); and
• (d)        the Council had not responded to the concern Mrs C had expressed about difficulties in presenting her domestic refuse for uplift (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council issue an appropriate letter of apology to Mrs C for their failure to get back to her on (c).

 The Council have accepted that recommendation.

Overview

Three complainants (Mr A, Mr B and Mrs C) were concerned that they did not receive any notification of a neighbour's planning application to build two extensions to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action once they were alerted by the complainants that they had not been notified of their neighbour's planning application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.