Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about Glasgow City Council (the Council)'s handling of a Statutory Notice issued in relation to the property he owns.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  by failing to issue a Statutory Notice in 1995, the Council concealed the condition of Mr C's property (not upheld);
• (b)  the decision not to issue a Statutory Notice in 1995 should have been taken by the full Council (not upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to monitor the condition of Mr C's property between 1995 and 2004 (not upheld);
• (d)  the Property Enquiry Certificate (PEC) obtained by Mr C's solicitor when Mr C purchased the property was incomplete and, therefore, misleading (not upheld); and
• (e)  the Statutory Notice issued in 2004 in respect of Mr C's property was inaccurate, and his property was not in a serious state of repair (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns that the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) failed to carry out works which, under the tenancy agreement, they were obliged to do.  This resulted in her grandmother (Mrs D)'s home being broken into and both her grandmother and herself suffering racial abuse.  Additionally, Ms C feels the Council failed to respond appropriately to her complaints about their treatment.  Ms C states that her grandmother was forced to give up her tenancy as a result of the racial abuse and has lost monies she had spent in renovating the house prior to giving up the tenancy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  offered Mrs D a house which was not habitable (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to carry out works which they are required to do under the Tenancy Agreement (partially upheld);
• (c)  failed to take action to address racial harassment Mrs D was experiencing, in particular, they failed to promptly remove racist graffiti (not upheld); and
• (d)  failed to provide details of their Racial Harassment procedure when requested to do so (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  highlight to officers the importance of maintaining written records of contacts with tenants and potential tenants, in particular in respect of missed appointments;
• (ii)  review their adherence to their documented repairs policy;
• (iii)  highlight to staff the importance of ensuring good communication between staff and members of the public; and
• (iv)  ensure that sufficient training has been carried out to ensure that staff are familiar with their responsibilities under the Council's Racial Harassment procedure.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that the successful operation of his farm has been undermined by the East Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s decision to grant planning consent for a housing development next door to his farm. Additionally, as a result of this development, Mr C has had problems modernising his farm to comply with modern pollution and animal welfare requirements.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Building Control Department are unfairly insisting that new drainage be installed to deal with the roof water from the silage clamp roof (not upheld);
• (b) the Planning Department failed to ensure that a planning condition in respect of planting for screening purposes was enforced (not upheld);
• (c) the Planning Department failed to ensure that the condition for screen fencing and planting was transferred to the new application (not upheld);
• (d) as a result of the failings in (b) and (c) above, Mr C had unfairly to include the provision of screen fencing in his application to construct his silage clamps (not upheld);
• (e) Mr C was inappropriately advised to withdraw his application for a cubicle shed by Council officers when he should have been advised to amend the proposals (not upheld);
• (f) the Council are putting too much emphasis on the decision of the Reporter rather than considering every application on its merits (not upheld);
• (g) the Council should consider Mr C's application as permitted development as the Council did not exercise its right to comment on his proposals within the statutory time scale (not upheld); and
• (h) the Council is not working with Mr C to try and resolve these outstanding matters (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) highlight to staff in the Planning Department the particular issues which can arise when Agricultural Prior Notification is received; and
• (ii) continue to work closely with Mr C in an attempt to find acceptable solutions to both the outstanding building control and planning problems.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) believes she was incorrectly advised of the application of administration charges by East Lothian Council (the Council) in connection with a common repair scheme, and that subsequent Council contact and documents did not contradict this belief.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which I have investigated is that Ms C was provided with inaccurate and misleading information about administration charges that the Council would make (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make a courtesy payment of £100 to Ms C;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the misunderstanding and lack of clarity in their documents; and
• (iii) advise owners of methods of payment, reasons for charges and methods of calculation in writing at the beginning of the common repairs process.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that in December 2005 Falkirk Council (the Council) erroneously refused his application to buy his Council house and that they sent him bills for council tax although he was exempt.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  in December 2005 the Council erroneously refused Mr C's application to buy his Council house (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council sent Mr C bills for council tax although he is exempt (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the provisions made by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to assist his mother (Mrs A) in and out of her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  should have carried out an assessment of the property and Mrs A's needs in advance of carrying out any work (not upheld);
• (b)  initially proposed the wrong kind of stair lift (not upheld);
• (c)  took too long to install the stair lift agreed upon and failed to keep Mr C and Mrs A updated on progress (not upheld);
• (d)  have still to complete all the required works (not upheld);
• (e)  failed to address the problem of car parking (not upheld); and
• (f)  have not apologised for the fact that officers took photographs outside the house without identifying themselves causing Mrs A some anxiety (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the way Orkney Islands Council (the Council) handled his request to reimburse his (and his wife's) travel and accommodation expenses after he turned down a job with them.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed properly to handle Mr C's request to reimburse his travel and accommodation expenses after he turned down a job offer (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council reimburse Mr C's reasonable travel and accommodation expenses.  She also recommends that any correspondence sent to candidates calling them for interview either makes specific references to the circumstances when such expenses are not paid or, alternatively, refers to the enclosure, 'Interview Expenses'.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority) dealt with a planning application for a site adjoining her property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Ms C was unreasonably denied the opportunity to address the Planning Committee as she had requested and as she had been invited (not upheld);
• (b)  the Park Authority deliberately and consistently refused to accept the effects of the proposed development on Ms C's home (not upheld);
• (c)  Ms C's objections were never addressed properly (not upheld); and
• (d)  Ms C was excluded from the planning process by the inappropriate use of standing orders (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Planning staff take care before issuing standard letters to ensure that their terms apply to the circumstances pertaining.

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

Overview

The complaint concerns allegations made on behalf of Mr and Mrs C by their MSP (Mr D) that the care received by their daughter (Ms C) from social work staff, prior to her death, was both ineffective and inappropriate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Ms C was placed in care contrary to her wishes, and regardless of the fact that she had carers to look after her in her own home (not upheld); and
• (b)  Council officers failed to respond to voice and email messages (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about Angus Council (the Council)'s alleged failure to take action on his complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour at a hotel close to his home.  Furthermore, he contended that the Council failed to adhere to their customer care policy when dealing with his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to take action on his complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour at a hotel close to his home (not upheld); and
• (b)  failed to adhere to their customer care policy when dealing with his complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.