Local Government

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.

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.