Local Government

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.

Overview

The complaint relates to the installation of a fire wall by Dundee City Council (the Council) in a property which is partly owned by the complainant (Mr C).  Mr C was aggrieved that the Council had not obtained his consent prior to installing this fire wall.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council instructed works to install a fire division wall without Mr C's consent as owner (upheld);
• (b)      the Council failed to respond to Mr C's correspondence asking them to explain the legal basis for installing the fire division wall (partially upheld); and
• (c)      the Council wrongly awarded grant aid to other owners (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the report.  The Council have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complaint from Mr C concerned East Lothian Council (the Council)'s alleged failure to take effective action against a neighbour who, it was said, did not comply with the terms of his tenancy by cleaning the common areas of the property where he lived.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take effective action against their tenant who did not comply with the terms of his tenancy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mr C complained of receiving misleading information from, and obstruction of information by, West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) during a consultation process on the future of denominational secondary education in his area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)      provision of misleading information (partially upheld);
• (b)      obstruction of information requested by the complainant (not upheld);
• (c)      maladministration of school rolls (not upheld);
• (d)      maladministration in a report to the Children's Services Committee (not upheld);
• (e)      maladministration of the complaints procedure (not upheld);
• (f)       false and incompetent research (not upheld);
• (g)      misrepresentation in correspondence to elected politicians (not upheld); and
• (h)      categorisation and characterisation of parents to third parties (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

Although I consider that the complainant was provided with some confusing information in the early stage of this matter, I do not propose to make any recommendations in regard to this.  I do not consider that, overall, it seriously prevented the complainant from making representations on the Council's proposals.  Throughout the remainder of the consultation, information was provided to the complainant and he had and took opportunities to make his views known.

Nevertheless, closures or mergers of schools are contentious issues which generate great strength of feeling.  Authorities should remain aware of the need to provide as much information and detail as early as possible in the process.  I have noted that, in this case, the Council carried out an early, informal consultation in addition to the statutory consultation required by regulations.

Overview

The complaint concerned the disputed transport of two pupils with special educational needs to and from their school and the alleged subsequent effect of the transport dispute on the pupils and their families; and the manner in which North Lanarkshire Council (the Council)’s Education Department dealt with the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) the way the Council dealt with the disputed transport of two pupils with special educational needs to and from their school between August 2001 and July 2002 and the alleged subsequent effect of the transport dispute on the pupils and their families (upheld); and
• (b) the manner in which the Council’s Education Department dealt with the complaint from the families of the pupils to the Chief Executive of the Council in March 2003. This included the alleged contrast in the way the Council’s Education and Social Work Departments respectively dealt with the families’ separate but related complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make a redress payment of the sum of £1,000 to Mr and Mrs C, in recognition of the anxiety and frustration they suffered during the course of their dispute with the Council and for their time and trouble in pursuing their complaint;
• (ii) make a redress payment of the sum of £1,000 to Mr and Mrs A, in recognition of the anxiety and frustration they suffered during the course of their dispute with the Council and for their time and trouble in pursuing their complaint;
• (iii) issue Mr and Mrs C with a full, formal apology for the manner in which the Council, in particular the Education Department, dealt with the school transport dispute;
• (iv) issue Mr and Mrs A with a full, formal apology for the manner in which the Council, in particular the Education Department, dealt with the school transport dispute;
• (v) review the administrative procedures to ensure (a) there is a system for proper liaison and cooperation between different Council departments; (b) that relevant information is shared between those departments; and (c) that, as far as possible, the maladministration identified in this Report does not recur;
• (vi) review the system for handling complaints so that all of its departments can demonstrate to a complainant that their complaint has been fairly, impartially and thoroughly investigated; and
• (vii) review the system for handling complaints so that, where a complaint relates to more than one Council department, consideration should be given to designating a lead officer to deal with the whole complaint, thereby ensuring consistency in the handling of that complaint.