Local Government

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.

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.