Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about an incident involving her son while he was at school.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Ms C was not advised properly of the circumstances involved (not upheld);
• (b)  insufficient information was obtained and the school failed to seek medical help (not upheld);
• (c)  on his return to school, Ms C's son was unreasonably required to participate in PE (not upheld); and
• (d)  although Ms C's son identified those involved, the school failed to report this to the police (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

An MSP complained on behalf of his constituent, Mrs C, about the replacement of a mutual path.  In particular, Mrs C alleged that there was no proper consultation in advance of the works being carried out; her suggested alternative was not taken into account; works were inadequately completed; neighbours had similar works completed more cheaply; and South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) failed to adhere to an agreement to resolve her complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to consult properly with Mrs C in advance of the works being carried out (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council disregarded Mrs C's alternative suggestion (no finding);
• (c)  works were completed inadequately (not upheld);
• (d)  neighbours had similar works completed more cheaply (not upheld); and
• (e)  the Council failed to adhere to an agreement to resolve Mrs C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about the way a tenancy offer made to them by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) had been withdrawn.  Mr and Mrs C said that an allegation of anti-social behaviour had been fabricated by the Council and that they had no opportunity to respond to the allegation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council offered a property that had been offered to Mr and Mrs C to someone else on 16 February 2006, even though Mr and Mrs C were only informed that the offer had been withdrawn on 20 March 2006 (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council fabricated a complaint of anti-social behaviour against Mr and Mrs C in order to justify having offered the property to someone else (not upheld);
• (c)  Mr and Mrs C were shown no evidence they were responsible for anti-social behaviour (not upheld); and
• (d)  Mr and Mrs C were not given the opportunity to respond to the complaint of anti-social behaviour that had been made against them (upheld).

As the investigation progressed, I identified further concerns and, therefore, informed the Council and Mr and Mrs C that the investigation would additionally consider whether the Council:

• (e)  failed to keep adequate records of their investigation (upheld); and
• (f)  failed to follow their Estate Management Procedures (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  use this report to inform their review of their Estate Management Procedures and address the failures in record-keeping that have been highlighted;
• (ii)  address my concerns regarding failure to follow procedures as part of their planned review of the Estate Management Procedures; and
• (iii)  apologise to Mr and Mrs C for their failure to follow their Estate Management Procedures in investigating the allegations made against them.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have already begun implementing them.

.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) whose child attended a local primary school, was concerned that a decision taken by East Renfrewshire Council (the Council) to withdraw the provision of free school buses for children of primary school age living within a two mile radius of a school was taken without risk assessment, impact analysis or transport assessment.  She believed that the decision-making process was flawed.  In addition, Ms C complained that the Council had not followed their complaints procedure and that correspondence she received from the Council's Chief Executive was inappropriate and intimidating.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council's decision to withdraw free school buses was taken without risk assessment, impact analysis or transport assessment (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council did not adhere to their complaints process (upheld);
• (c)  the Council's conduct in communicating with Ms C was unprofessional and inappropriate (not upheld); and
• (d)  a letter sent from the Chief Executive to Ms C on 15 May 2006, headed 'Staff Protocols', was inappropriate and intimidating (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Ms C for failing to accept her complaint under their complaints procedure;
• (ii)  put in place measures to ensure that, in future, complainants are given accurate information straightaway when their complaints will not be accepted under paragraph 6 of the Council's complaints procedure; and
• (iii)  apologise to Ms C for sending her what I consider is an inappropriate and intimidating letter.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that the needs of his mother-in-law (Mrs A) had been inappropriately assessed by social work staff from East Renfrewshire Council (ERC SWD), when she was discharged from hospital to Mr and Mrs C's home in Glasgow; and that they did not make an appropriate referral to their counterparts at Glasgow City Council Social Services (GCC SWD).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  following meetings on 17 August 2005 and 6 September 2005, ERC SWD failed to contact GCC SWD to arrange for Mrs A's needs to be assessed (not upheld);
• (b)  ERC SWD  failed to advise Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) as to what entitlement to assistance  there might be for caring for Mrs A in their home (not upheld); and
• (c)  ERC SWD failed to advise Mr and Mrs C that, to qualify for grant aid for the installation of bathroom facilities for Mrs A, prior approval of the works was required (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

Although not upholding the complaint, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the issue of advice to relatives of patients previously relying on support from the Council's Social Work Department on discharge from hospital to a relative's care.  The Council informed her that they are happy to take on board the recommendation and to review the advice currently given.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) have complained that East Ayrshire Council (the Council) have not responded appropriately to their concerns about injuries and damage to their property by users of a football field.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have not taken appropriate action following injury and damage to property caused by the use of a Council owned sports field (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

.

Overview

East Lothian Council (the Council) had granted planning permission in 2001 for a new building development near the home of the complainant (Mrs C).  During construction it became apparent that a proposed balcony was likely to lead to a loss of privacy for Mrs C.  This had not been considered when planning consent had been granted.  When the issue came to light, Mrs C complained that this was not dealt with appropriately.  In particular, she was aggrieved that the Council were unable to enforce the proposed solution of screening on the balcony.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to take appropriate action when they became aware that the issue of loss of privacy had not been considered at the planning application stage (upheld); and
• (b)  the Council did not respond appropriately to Mrs C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i)  approach Mrs C to seek her agreement in pursuing a joint reference  to the District Valuer for an assessment of the impact of the overlooking only from the balcony on the value of her home with a view to the Council reimbursing Mrs C for any loss in value ; and
• (ii)  should also meet the costs of the reference.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about noise nuisance from a neighbouring bus station.  He was concerned that adequate acoustic screening had not been put in place following a redevelopment and that complaints about continuing nuisance were not handled appropriately by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have not dealt adequately with noise nuisance from a local bus station (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  undertake a thorough review of the complaints handling procedures of the departments involved to ensure that complainants and Council staff understand how complaints should be processed and dealt with.  On this point the Ombudsman draws the Council's attention to the Valuing Complaints initiative produced by the Ombudsman's office;
• (ii)  develop appropriate policies and procedures for dealing with noise nuisance;
• (iii)  take noise readings to assess the adequacy of the arrangements already put in place; and
• (iv)  apologise to Mr C for their poor handling of his complaint.

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