Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that two Council officers pursued a personal vendetta against him and his family.  He said as a consequence, he has been incorrectly pursued for nearly £7,000 in Council Tax arrears which he felt obliged to pay.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Council officers pursued a vendetta against Mr C by treating his neighbour more favourably and not enforcing her tenancy conditions (not upheld); and
• (b)  Mr C was incorrectly pursued for Council Tax arrears and that affected his right to buy his Council house (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding her late mother (Mrs A)'s application to purchase her council house from The Highland Council (the Council).  Mrs C felt that the Council had unnecessarily delayed the process and, as a result, the sale was not completed prior to her mother's death.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  a staff member's lack of knowledge of relevant legislation which sets out a tenant's right to buy (RTB) their council rented property resulted in a delay in the processing of the application (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council's actions delayed the processing of the application unnecessarily and the clarification of Mrs A's eligibility to buy her Council house (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was unhappy that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had agreed to sell some land to a neighbour and to also allow the neighbour to garden some land owned by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  the decision of the Council to sell the land (not upheld); and
• (b)  the decision of the Council to allow a neighbour to garden some land owned by the Council (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure all relevant staff dealing with a land purchase application are informed when complaints are being considered;
• (ii)  ensure that complainants are kept informed of the progress of their complaint; and
• (iii)  clarify the maintenance arrangements for the land with Mrs C.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s son (Mr A) has an inherited genetic disease and she believed that his head teacher showed a lack of care and compassion for him and a lack of respect for her as a parent.  Mrs C maintained that she made a number of formal complaints about this but, that North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) failed to respond properly, explore all relevant issues and speak with independent witnesses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not properly investigate a complaint against the head teacher and witness statements were not sought (partially upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to adhere to an undertaking to provide a corrected minute (partially upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to abide to an agreement concerning home tuition (no finding);
• (d)  the head teacher inappropriately sought information about a private meeting (not upheld);
• (e)  the head teacher failed to enter properly into the spirit of mediation (not upheld); and
• (f)  the Council failed to provide a proper explanation for the reasons why a photograph of her son had been publicly displayed (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mrs C for the fact that an unfavourable minute was issued; for the fact that information on home tuition was not made available earlier; and for the time and trouble she spent trying to establish the circumstances which took place with regard to the photograph.

In addition, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  have in place a published policy on arrangements for home tuition,
• (ii)  always provide clarification of the process required  in the preparation of home tuition work, for instance as was clarified to Mrs C in August 2006; and
• (iii)  review their existing complaints procedure where it concerns head teachers, in order to exclude the possibility of them investigating complaints made against themselves.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns regarding the installation of a bus stop outside his home.  He claimed that the Council had failed to adhere to their Customer Care Policy in locating the stop outside his home and also breached health and safety policies.  He also claimed that the Council failed to consider his privacy when deciding the location of the bus stop.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are the Council's failure to:

• (a)  adhere to health and safety legislation when deciding on the site of the bus stop (not upheld);
• (b)  adhere to the aims of the Customer Care Policy when deciding to install the bus stop (partially upheld); and
• (c)  consider the impacts on Mr C's privacy when deciding on the location of the bus stop (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)        review their procedures for locating bus stops; and
• (ii)       issue an apology to Mr C for the failure to adhere to the Customer Care Policy in relation to Mr C's complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant, Miss C, was unhappy that despite initially agreeing to sell to her some land next to her home which she said she had been gardening for some time, the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) decided they would only sell her a reduced amount of land and required some of the landscaping to be undone.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  the decision of the Council to sell some but not all of the land to Miss C (not upheld); and
• (b)  the decision of the Council to remove some of the gardening on the land retained by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  clarify their policy on 'piecemeal' sales; and
• (ii)  clarify the maintenance arrangements for the land with Miss C.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C (acting on behalf of an Action Group (the Group)) was concerned that Council planning officers had decided there was no requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)  in connection with a planning application.  She also felt that there were delays in responding to the Group's complaints and concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not correctly identify a planning application as a Schedule 2 development or deal with it appropriately (not upheld); and
• (b)  there were delays in responding to the Group's complaints and concerns (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  ensure that, where appropriate, planning officers include sufficient detail in their reports on planning applications to demonstrate they have fully considered the EIA Regulations; and
• (ii)  emphasise to staff the importance of keeping complainants informed of the progress of any formal complaint and of the stage of the complaints process at which their complaint has been considered.

Overview

A Citizens' Advice Bureau Officer (the complainant for the purposes of our complaint, to be known here as Ms C) raised a number of concerns about The Highland Council (the Council)'s handling of her clients (Mr and Mrs D's) Council Tax account and their subsequent formal complaint to the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to notify Mr and Mrs D of outstanding Council Tax in a timely manner (not upheld);
• (b)  contradictory information was provided by the Council regarding Mr and Mrs D's Council Tax account (not upheld);
• (c)  inadequate checks were undertaken by the Council prior to taking formal action (not upheld);
• (d)  an inadequate explanation was provided by Council staff for the error which occurred in relation to the handling of Mr and Mrs D's Council Tax account (not upheld); and
• (e)  the investigation carried out by the Council into Mr and Mrs D's complaint was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the way Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Authority) investigated his complaint about the tendering process for the distribution of the Authority's publicity material.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Authority failed to carry out a proper investigation into Mr C's complaint (not upheld);
• (b)  the Authority's investigation into Mr C's complaint took an unacceptable time to complete (upheld);
• (c)  the Authority's response to the complaint was inaccurate (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Authority failed to respond to Mr C's letter of 26 August 2005 in a timeous fashion (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Authority:

• (i)  ensure compliance with their complaints procedure, in particular they ensure that information about a complainant's rights to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman's office is always provided; and
• (ii)  ensure that complainants are kept informed of the progress of their complaints.

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

Overview

The complainants (planning consultants acting on behalf of a client) were unhappy that, following consideration of their client's planning application by an Area Committee of Aberdeenshire Council (the Council), further objections were allowed and the application was reconsidered by the Area Committee.  The Consultants said that their clients incurred additional costs as a result of the delay.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the decision to reconsider the planning application led to unnecessary delay (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to the applicants (the Firm) for the delay in dealing with this application;
• (ii)  following receipt of documented evidence of the costs necessarily incurred in pursuing this complaint, reimburse the Consultants' fees relating to this to the Firm;
• (iii)  ensure all applications which may involve development plan departures are dealt with in line with PAN 41 unless there are demonstrable reasons why it would not be appropriate to do so;  
• (iv)  end their practice of considering applications subject to 'completion of departure proceedings'; and
• (v)  provide her with a copy of the report of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee into their decentralisation arrangements.

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