Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that her neighbour (Mr A) had erected a wall with gateposts and a gate on land which was intended as a two metre wide service strip and was aggrieved that  Fife Council (the Council) had not required the removal of the wall and gate.  She claimed the wall impeded access to refuse collection vehicles and presented a danger to pedestrians.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action with regard to the wall built by her neighbour on the service verge (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that her report be placed before the relevant committee of the Council for them to consider whether the complainant's neighbour should be invited to regularise the position with regard to building standards and apply for planning consent.

Overview

The complaint concerned the way in which the Highland Council (the Council) handled the complainant's Council Tax.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council sent her confusing and contradictory correspondence (upheld);
• (b) the Council refused her request to pay by equal instalments spread over 12months (not upheld);
• (c) the complainant failed to receive an amended bill dated 25May 2005 nor a reminder notice dated 24August 2005 (not upheld);
• (d) the complainant paid all the sums required of her but further payments were demanded (not upheld); and
• (e) the Council still owe the complainant £314.91 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council make an apology to the complainant for the shortcomings identified, reinforced by a payment of £100.

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

Overview

The complaint concerns South Lanarkshire Council's (the Council) proposals to re-build, rather than renovate, a school.  The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were aggrieved that the Council did not re-tender the works when the Council's proposals were changed; that it was unsatisfactory that transportation costs remained to be calculated; and that no explanation was given for the reasons why the site next to an existing primary school was unsuitable.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not re-tender the works when their proposals for the School changed from renovate to re-build (not upheld);
• (b) it was unsatisfactory that transportation costs remained to be calculated (not upheld); and
• (c) no explanation was given for the reasons why the site next to an existing primary school was unsuitable (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the way in which the Council dealt with the complainant's representations about unauthorised development at a neighbouring house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to do enough to encourage the developer to submit retrospective planning and building warrant applications (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to consider Mrs C's objections properly and in accordance with their stated procedure (partially upheld);
• (c) although the application was contentious, it was dealt with under delegated powers, contrary to Council guidelines (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council failed to consider this retrospective application in the same way as other, more timely, applications (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mrs C for failing to adhere to their stated aim of responding to objections within two working days and to emphasise the importance of this to staff.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues involving the care of his late uncle.  Mr C complained about an inappropriate relationship and subsequent bequest of property to a social work employee.  He also complained about the employee's involvement in the purchase of a council house and the making of a Will.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) West Lothian Council (the Council) breached their policies and the Care Commission guidelines on caring for vulnerable clients in relation to the making of Wills, the purchase of a client's house and the acceptance of gifts (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to adequately respond to Mr C's representations (not upheld); and
• (c) the investigation carried out by the Council into the case was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint was made on behalf of an Aberdeen resident (Mrs C) by her Member of the Scottish Parliament (the MSP) about the Council's continued support for an amended subsidised service which had been introduced in early 1997.  Mrs C, who has a sensitivity to diesel fumes, had sought to have that service re-routed, an alternative turning point found, or the service and another contract service for a school withdrawn.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council, in dealing with her representations and representations made on her behalf, had not properly taken Mrs C's health into account (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council had not acted appropriately to re-route or withdraw the services having an adverse effect on Mrs C's health (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the development of a site close to an aggrieved person's home and the complainant, on his behalf, alleged that the Council provided incorrect and untimely advice with regard to planning applications and, generally handled the matter with impropriety.  As a result, an opportunity to object was denied and significant monies had been spent in trying to resolve the situation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to exert due care and attention when considering an application for outline planning permission (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to give proper advice on potential remedies (not upheld);
• (c) the Council failed properly to consider revoking the outline permission granted (not upheld);
• (d) the application for reserved matters was handled with impropriety (not upheld); and
• (e) the Council failed to follow their complaints procedure when dealing with the complainant's representations (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make to the Council.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns:  that her grandfather's (Mr A) flat was in an unfit condition; that he was being denied access to communal ground; and that her complaints on this matter had not been dealt with appropriately.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A's house was not maintained adequately (not upheld);
• (b) Mr A was denied access to communal ground (not upheld); and
• (c) Mrs C's complaints were not handled appropriately (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise, in guidance issued to Council staff, that complainants should be reminded of their rights to take their complaint further in any formal response from East Dunbartonshire Council.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) acted unreasonably in that they agreed to sell him a piece of land and then subsequently withdrew it from sale.  Mr C also complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council agreed to sell a piece of land to Mr C but subsequently refused to do so (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council acted unreasonably when Mr C complained (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues with East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of three planning applications submitted for the erection of residential units on a site close to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council, in their handling of the planning applications, have breached planning procedures and misled the public (see Annex 2) (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.