Local Government

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.

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.