Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised specific complaints about restrictive off-road vehicle access to and from his driveway and the way in which Fife Council (the Council) dealt with their subsequent application of white road markings.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council put white road markings intended to assist with Mr C's vehicle entry to and exit from his house in the wrong place, opposite his neighbour's driveway instead of his own (not upheld); and
• (b)      the Council failed to comply with their offer to provide a footway crossing at the Council's expense (not upheld).

 Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about North Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s actions in pursuing her for outstanding council tax (arrears).  She claimed that the Council were unreasonable and did not take account of her situation as she was on benefits and had a disabled child.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to give notice before changing payment agreement (not upheld);
• (b) unfair denial of access to a bank account (not upheld);
• (c) failure to provide a corrected statement of arrears (upheld); and
• (d) pressed unreasonably to take action while complaint was the subject of an Ombudsman investigation (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide her with details of the protocol they have put in place with the Sheriff Officers for their dealings with the Council's customers;
• (ii) investigate the failure to provide a corrected statement of arrears and take necessary action to ensure that their method of recording arrears is robust;
• (iii) inform her of the outcome of the test case being taken through court;
• (iv) produce a protocol and guidance for staff on the circumstances when an arrestment can be served, including when it could be appropriate to give consideration to lifting and/or waiving an arrestment fee; and
• (v) apologise to Mrs C for the difficulties she has experienced.

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

Overview

The complaint concerned the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s decision to refuse a claim for compensation for damage to a kitchen which had resulted from a leak in an upstairs neighbouring flat.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's handling of a claim for compensation was flawed when work at a neighbouring flat was allegedly not carried out properly (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Council's offer of an apology reinforced by a payment of £50 provided a suitable remedy to the complaint.  She asks the Council to notify her when this action is implemented.  Also, that they look into, and address, the reasons for the delay to ensure that these circumstances are not repeated.

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

Overview

The complaint concerned a breach of planning permission which was acknowledged by the Highland Council (the Council) but where, the complainant (Mr C) alleged, little action had been taken.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that despite complaints that a condition of planning consent had been breached, the Council delayed and took little action (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

(i)       proceed to implement enforcement action without delay and in the event that they fail to achieve compliance, seek to implement an appropriate penalty; and

(ii)      offer Mr C a fulsome and sincere apology, reinforced by a payment to recognise the time and trouble involved in pursuing the matter and making his complaint, and the impact on his home over the years.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about East Dunbartonshire Council’s (the Council) failure to pay for their share of repairs in a four unit property where the Council owned one of the units. They also complained about the length of time taken by the Council to answer correspondence.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not have the necessary procedures in place to deal with enquiries from home owners and to process repairs on buildings in which they own one of the units (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to train its staff and amend its processes in anticipation of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 (upheld);
• (c)  there is no process in place for arbitration in cases where there is a dispute between the Council and owner-occupiers regarding repairs and, additionally, that the Council cannot serve a statutory notice on itself to carry out repairs (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Council took a long time or failed to respond to requests and correspondence from Mr and Mrs C (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)       should meet the legal costs incurred by Mr and Mrs C in pursuing the issue of the Council’s obligations under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004;
• (ii)      make a further payment of £150 to Mr and Mrs C for their time and trouble in pursuing this matter and their subsequent complaint;
• (iii)      apologise to Mr and Mrs C for their failure to respond to their enquiries in August and October 2004; and
• (iv)      take steps to ensure that any enquiries are promptly and appropriately dealt with even if they are received by the wrong department.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding a planning application which had been submitted to Inverclyde Council (the Council) by a developer and the handling of their complaint by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council failed to answer questions put to them by the complainants (upheld);
• (b)      correspondence was sent to the wrong address (upheld); and
• (c)      the Council failed to return telephone calls (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council make a time and trouble payment of £150 to the complainants.

The Council have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that East Lothian Council (the Council) did not respond appropriately to complaints concerning an Orange Parade and the subsequent representations made by the Orange Lodge (the Lodge).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council improperly refused to grant a meeting to allow the Lodge to express its views on the complaints (not upheld);
• (b)      the Council refused to hold an internal review following a request by the Lodge (not upheld); and
• (c)      the Council refused to allow elected Council members to become involved in the complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of his adult daughter (Ms C) relating to the handling by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) of a building warrant application in respect of the conversion of a former hotel into two flats.  Following Ms C's purchase of one of the flats, substantial work had been required to eradicate rot and, although a certificate of completion had been issued, a number of matters remained outstanding.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Mr C that have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council mishandled the application for building warrant for the conversion of the former hotel into two flats (not upheld);
• (b)      the Council issued a certificate of completion in respect of that warrant before works were completed (not upheld);
• (c)      the Council failed to deal in a timely manner with non compliance by the builder with the approved access dimensions in the planning consent (partially upheld); and
• (d)      in terms of the listed building consent, the Council allowed new windows to be installed that failed to comply with Historic Scotland's stipulation of like for like replacement (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr C for their failings in respect of (c).  The Council accepted the recommendation.