Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the adequacy of the heating in his accommodation and the fact that East Lothian Council (the Council) had failed to meet their commitment to install gas central heating.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council made a commitment to install gas central heating and failed to do so (not upheld); and
• (b) the heating in Mr C’s accommodation is inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make in this case.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that funding for the replacement and upgrade of his central heating was withdrawn by Fife Council without justifiable reasons and that the Council had not handled his complaint according to their complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) unjustifiably withdrew their offer to fund the replacement and upgrade of Mr C's central heating system (upheld); and
• (b) failed to handle Mr C's complaint according to their complaints procedure and to adequately respond to Mr C's appeal against their decision to withdraw funding (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) should have a process in place to manage situations where it is difficult to come to a mutually suitable arrangement with HELP beneficiaries;
• (ii) should offer to fund the installation, in Mr C's property, of the central heating system suggested to him in their letter of 2 March 2005 and give Mr C a specific timescale to consider whether he wants to go ahead with this proposal;
• (iii) should apologise for their failure to respond to Mr C's suggestions;
• (iv) should remind officers of the importance of responding fully to correspondence received and, additionally, that any response should be addressed to the person who makes the complaint;
• (v) should ensure that all complaints are fully investigated and responded to;
• (vi) should apologise to Mr C for their failure to adequately respond to his appeal, their delay in providing a substantive response to Mr C's complaint under the second stage of their complaints process and their failure to take all circumstances of the complaint into account when carrying out their investigation.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that Glasgow City Council had installed a driveway outside his house which was unusable, because of a steep camber that caused his car to ground, but had said they would not prioritise the road for resurfacing to correct the camber.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the Council's failure to prioritise a road for resurfacing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the decision to issue a Provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on trees on land owned by the complainant (Mrs C) and that, in the subsequent decision to confirm the TPO, she said that the Director of Planning failed to represent properly her objections to the Planning and Development Control Committee.  Later, when Mrs C complained to the Chief Executive, she said he failed to consider the matter properly.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Director of Planning failed to represent properly her objections to the Planning and Development Control Committee (not upheld); and
• (b) the Chief Executive failed to consider her complaint properly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerns Renfrewshire Council's alleged delay in progressing a housing benefit appeal.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was delay in progressing the housing benefit appeal (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensures that appellants receive regular, written updates of the progress of their case;
• (i) apologise for not advising the complainant of the outcome of a review; and
• (ii) make an appropriate payment in recognition of the time and trouble taken in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) alleged that a verbal payment agreement for Council Tax was not recorded or honoured by Aberdeen City Council.  It is also alleged that Council staff treated Mrs C abruptly when the complaint was initially raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that

• (a) the council failed to adequately record a verbal agreement reached between Mrs C and a member of staff regarding her payment schedule for Council Tax. Mrs C claims that this error resulted in a summary warrant being issued (upheld).
• (b) staff failed to treat Mrs C with an open mind – Mrs C claims she was not believed by staff when referring to this previous agreement and was treated abruptly (not upheld).

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) devise and pilot a clear procedure for staff updating customer records once a verbal payment agreement has been reached via a face to face discussion. Ideally, this would include the production of a signed agreement which both parties can keep as a record. This would clearly prevent similar complaints from arising again; and
• (ii) write an apology to Mrs C for the inconvenience and distress caused by the issuing of an unnecessary Summary Warrant.

Overview

The complaint was raised by the Housing Association acting as management agent for the Housing Support Provider (HSP).  The Housing Association complained that Dundee City Council had failed to properly administer the HSP's application and to resolve the problem once it was identified.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to award the HSP an interim contract (upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to take action to correct the error once identified (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council award the HSP an interim contract with immediate effect.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and met with the HSP.  A way forward has been agreed by both parties and the Ombudsman considers the matter resolved.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about how Aberdeenshire Council handled a planning representation and the inadequate manner in which they dealt with the subsequent complaint about this.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a Council employee provided misinformation by advising that objections and concerns about a Planning Application Submission would remain confidential unless plans went to Committee (not upheld);
• (b) the Council did not respond in good time to the subsequent complaint about the misinformation they provided (not upheld);
• (c) the Council inadequately responded to concerns by stating that the linking of two neighbouring houses by an extension, did not contradict their policy HOU/7 (House Extensions), about protecting the character and amenity of existing houses and surroundings (not upheld);
• (d) the Chief Executive and Area Manager provided ambiguous and contradictory replies to the complaint (not upheld); and
• (e) the Council inadequately addressed the key issues that they breached Ms C's confidentiality and misused her personal data by publishing Ms C's objections (to a Planning Application Submission) on its website (upheld).

The complaints at (a) and (b) were not upheld as they were resolved by the Council before Ms C came to the Ombudsman.

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Ms C for the failure identified, and that they respond to Ms C's question about possible breach of the Data Protection Act (1998).

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