Local Government

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.

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.