Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned about the process of consultation surrounding a byelaw review carried out by Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority).  Mr C complained that public responses were not correctly recorded and the process by which consultants were appointed was unclear.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that : Cconsultation relating to a recent byelaw review was inadequate and, in particular, public responses were not correctly recorded and the process by which consultants were appointed were unclear (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the problems she experienced in her previous home and afterwards, when she transferred to her current house and that North Lanarkshire Council failed to acknowledge their assurances that her Right to Buy discount would be unaffected.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Ms C which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Council failed to acknowledge the dreadful living conditions she had to endure and the damage caused to her home (not upheld); and
• (b)       the Council failed to acknowledge the assurances made to her that her Right to Buy discount would be unaffected (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)        in the event of Ms C seeking to buy her house, allow her to do so on terms equivalent to those which would have applied had she retained her Right to Buy discount; and
• (ii)       ensure that a process is in place to provide tenants with written advice, in advance of any new tenancy, of possible changes to their Right to Buy.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about a fence which had been erected by North Lanarkshire Council to the rear of his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Council stated that the fence was necessary because of Mr C's family's anti-social behaviour despite the Police being unaware of any such issues.  Furthermore, the decision to put up the fence was made as a result of a complaint by only one neighbour (not upheld);
• (b)       Mr C was not consulted before the fence was put up (not upheld); and
• (c)       the erection of the steel fence at the rear of Mr C's property causes a nuisance to him and his family (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about East Lothian Council (the Council)'s actions in relation to works which they were carrying out to their house.  In particular it is alleged that amongst other things, the Council stopped works, failed to reply to correspondence, published their correspondence on a website and interfered in the sale of the property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Council delayed in dealing with their application for a building warrant (not upheld);
• (b)       the Council stopped works on site (upheld);
• (c)       despite a reminder, the Council failed to respond to a letter of 27 April 2005 (upheld);
• (d)       the Council published their correspondence on the Council's planning website (not upheld);
• (e)       the Council interfered with the sale of their house (upheld); and
• (f)        the Council delayed in issuing a completion certificate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)        apologise for the stoppage of work in March 2005 and for the Planning Enforcement Officer calling the complainant's solicitor;
• (ii)       emphasise to staff the importance of timely responses to correspondence;
• (iii)      emphasise to planning officers when it is appropriate for them to discuss aspects of a planning application with third parties; and
• (iv)      apologise for the delay in issuing a completion certificate and give consideration to advising applicants of the likely timescales when a delay is likely.

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

Overview

Miss C complained of being given misinformation in regard to her rent account when she transferred to another Council house, and of problems in getting repairs carried out to the house.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated concern:

• (a) misinformation as to the date on which she was required to take entry and pay rent and council tax in respect of her new tenancy (upheld);*
• (b) misinformation about the direct debit arrangements required for making payments to her rent and council tax account (upheld);
• (c) failure by the Council adequately to carry out repairs and maintenance to her new home (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their practices regarding changes of tenancy to ensure that correct information is given regarding transfer arrangements and rental charges; and
• (ii) advise tenants of the priority code as well as the timescale within which their repairs are likely to be carried out.

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

* Please note that the Report incorrectly states on the summary page that this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.  It was upheld, and the SPSO has apologised to Miss C and to the Council for our typographical error.

Overview

The complaint was in connection with a planning application made in 2002.  This was granted in 2005.  The complainant (Mrs C) was unhappy with the delay, Aberdeenshire Council (the Council)'s response to her complaints and she felt the application had been dealt with less favourably than a subsequent application by new owners of part of the land.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) that planning permission was only granted in 2005 for an application made in 2002 (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's handling of the complaint about this (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) clarify to all planning staff that it is not appropriate to authorise planning permission on any other grounds than that of planning merits;
• (ii) audit their policy and procedures for maintaining planning records and implement any changes they identify as necessary as a result of this; and
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for their initial response to her complaint and confirm with staff their procedures for ensuring complaints are swiftly dealt with and progressed.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised seven issues relating to the handling of an application for planning permission for residential development in the steading where they reside.  They also complained about the failure of South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s failure to meet their targets in responding to their complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to spot errors by the applicant in his description of the proposals (not upheld);
• (b) objectors were misled by officers that the application would be considered on its merits (not upheld);
• (c) the report to committee on the application failed properly to assess and evaluate the proposals (not upheld);
• (d) the report failed adequately to convey the unique situation of Mr and Mrs C and the impact on their human rights (not upheld);
• (e) the report to committee showed bias and discriminated against Mr and Mrs C, failed adequately to represent their objections, and failed to challenge untruthful statements by the applicant (not upheld);
• (f) Mr and Mrs C were not furnished with a copy of the report and were not informed they could approach a councillor to present their case (not upheld);
• (g) as objectors, Mr and Mrs C were not afforded the opportunity to be heard by the committee (upheld); and
• (h) the Council failed to meet their published targets in responding to Mr and Mrs C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified.  She recognises that The Planning Act (Scotland) 2006 will establish a new system of public engagement and consultation in the planning process and recommends that the Council in meeting their obligations take all necessary steps to ensure that objectors in sparsely populated areas are not discriminated against.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns over the handling of his complaint about access protection markings and the consultation process for the extension of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in Edinburgh.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Council responses were deliberately unclear and evasive (not upheld);
• (b)       the Council's letters regarding access protection markings were contradictory (not upheld);
• (c)       the Council deliberately ignored information Mr C had given about his ability to contact them, to make it difficult for him to contact them (not upheld);
• (d)       the Council did not respond to his letters in an acceptable time (upheld);
• (e)       the Council did not keep residents informed of the process by letter (not upheld);
• (f)        objections to the proposals for the CPZ were not responded to individually (not upheld);
• (g)       copies of the Report of the Public Hearing into the CPZ were not automatically sent to objectors or residents (not upheld);
• (h)       the Council did not inform residents of changes to parking regulations in their area at the outset but only in phases as the work went on (not upheld);
• (i)        the Council's informing of the public via a website was unacceptable (not upheld); and
• (j)        no reference to Mr C's objections was made in the enquiry report (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his letters and review their processes for acknowledging and responding to correspondence.

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

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) contacted the Ombudsman's office as she was concerned that North Lanarkshire Council's Environmental Health Team was not addressing problems she was experiencing with a noise and vibration problem within her Council house.  Miss C stated that this led to her suffering health problems.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take action to properly record and address noise and vibration problems within Miss C's home (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes no recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s handling of his request for direct payments to enable him to purchase help with domestic tasks in his home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)      delayed placing Mr C on the home care waiting list (upheld);
• (b)      failed to provide Mr C with information on the progress of his request for direct payments (upheld); and
• (c)      delayed in responding to Mr C's complaint to the Chief Executive about direct payments (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)       provide Mr C with a written apology for the delay in processing his request for direct payments and for failing to provide Mr C with information on the progress of his request;
• (ii)      pay Mr C direct payments for the period for which he was eligible i.e. 12 November 2004 to 6 December 2005;
• (iii)      devise a detailed procedure for the handling of direct payment requests that takes into account the legislative requirements and guidance.  The procedure should clearly specify the role of the Social Work, Home Care and Direct Payment Services in the handling of direct payment requests and require that each step of the process be documented and held on file.  The procedure should also include the requirement that all forms, which are part of the process, are completed, signed and dated and that applicants for direct payments or homecare are informed in writing of the outcome of their application and the reasons for the decision; and
• (iv)      devise a system to ensure that, in future, complaints are dealt with in a timely manner.

The Council have accepted the recommendations.