Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns relating to her tenancy, including complaints about the adequacy of repairs to her flat and dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  work to treat woodworm infestation, dampness and rot was not carried out promptly or effectively (not upheld);
• (b)  furnishings removed to carry out inspections and treatment were not correctly reinstated (not upheld);
• (c)  concerns raised about anti-social behaviour were not adequately addressed (not upheld);
• (d)  the Council failed to respond to a formal complaint (upheld); and
• (e)  the repossession of a lock-up garage was carried out improperly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  review the system for ensuring the quality of repair work completed; and
• (ii)  apologise to Ms C for failing to respond to a formal complaint.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and his neighbour Mrs D), were concerned that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) failed to require that they be re-notified when an amended planning application was received from Mr C and Mrs D's neighbour.  Mr C and Mrs D were also concerned that the original plans and planning application were missing from the Council's planning file.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to require that Mr C and Mrs D be re-notified when an amended planning application was received from Mr C and Mrs D's neighbour (no finding); and
• (b)  failed to keep adequate records (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) had delayed in attending to works which their surveyor considered necessary after an inspection at Mr C's home in 2003 and had unreasonably initiated legal proceedings against him.  Mr C complained that they had harassed and discriminated against him.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  delayed in attending to works which their surveyor considered necessary after an inspection at his home in 2003 (upheld);
• (b)  unreasonably initiated legal proceedings (upheld); and
• (c)  harassed and discriminated against Mr C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the apologies already given by the Council and their offer of £800 in recognition of the time and trouble spent by Mr C in pursuing his complaints provided a suitable remedy to the matter.  However, she recommends that:

• (i)  when implementing repairs, the Council give careful consideration to the effects any disruption may have on those with health problems; and
• (ii)  the Council reviews the channels of communication between the arrears and benefits sections of the Housing and Community Care Department.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that a senior official (the Senior Official) with Shetland Islands Council (the Council) failed to declare an interest when dealing with certain organisations.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Senior Official failed to declare an interest when dealing with organisations in which his brother was involved (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise to staff the importance of public perception in relation to their actions.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about East Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of various planning applications submitted for the erection of a housing development on a site adjacent to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council showed favouritism to the developer throughout their consideration of the various planning applications submitted by the developer (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  take steps to ensure that the administrative errors which had been identified prior to my involvement in relation to the Council's planning files are addressed to ensure that they do not arise in the future; and
• (ii)  revisit their Scheme of Planning Application Delegation (the mechanism which allows Council Officers discretion to determine applications) to see whether there is a need, in cases such as this, for a referral to committee.

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

Overview

The complaint concerns damage to the living room wooden floor following water penetration during the course of renovation works.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council refused to replace a wooden floor that allegedly was damaged by water penetration into the living room, caused by Contractors acting on behalf of the Council in the course of a Capital Repairs Programme (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that in order to restore Ms C's living room to the condition it was in before the flooding occurred, the Council makes arrangements to replace the wooden floor and at the same time fulfils their previous offer to Ms C, to replace the living room ceiling and decorate the room.

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

Overview

The complaint concerns Glasgow City Council (the Council)'s handling of a request from the Complainant (Mr C) for accreditation as a journalist.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing to recognise Mr C as a journalist (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

While I do not uphold Mr C's complaint I suggest that, to avoid any possible confusion in the future, the Council consider producing a written policy detailing the criteria used by them when considering requests for recognition from journalists.

The Ombudsman has no further recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the way new parking restrictions at a car park in Glenrothes were advertised.  She also complained that a request for information made on her behalf by her Councillor (the Councillor) was refused by Fife Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council did not adequately notify the public about the new parking restrictions (not upheld); and
• (b)      the Council failed to respond to a request, made on Mrs C's behalf by her Councillor, for a copy of a worksheet showing when a permanent notice detailing the new parking restrictions was erected (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) considered that South Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s Social Work Department were wrongly representing his wife (Mrs C), who lived in a care home, as being mentally capable of determining her own life.  He considered that decisions about her life should, instead, be made through consultation with himself or his wife's solicitor.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council wrongly represented Mrs C's mental capacity (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by Angus Council (the Council) of planning proposals for the extension of church premises to the rear of their home.  Unauthorised changes were made by the developer to the original proposals.  These were the subject of a revised application which was refused by the Council and an enforcement notice was served.  The developer subsequently appealed successfully to the Scottish Ministers.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council failed initially to check the relative position of the proposed extension to adjacent houses prior to granting planning consent in 2002 (partially upheld);
• (b)      when an application for a building warrant was submitted on 20 May 2003, the Planning Service failed to respond regarding the discrepancy between these plans and those for which they had granted planning consent in the previous year (not upheld); and
• (c)      the Council did not in the autumn of 2004 properly consider the issue of a stop notice to prevent further work on the extension (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.