Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of his clients, Mr and Mrs D.  He alleged that Perth and Kinross Council had provided Mr and Mrs D with inaccurate advice in respect of a housing move.  They believe that the Council incorrectly advised them to stay in their home.  This led to their being taken to court and costs being awarded against them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council advised Mr and Mrs D to stay in their Housing Association home despite the Association advising that they would undertake Court proceedings if they remained (upheld); and
• (b) the Council cancelled the offer of temporary accommodation with the instruction that they must stay put until the Court Order was issued (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make payment of their offer of £800 to Mr and Mrs D; and
• (ii) review the way advice is provided, and recorded within the Housing and Building Services Department.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about how the repairs contract on his property was managed and his dissatisfaction with the increased cost from the original estimate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to adequately supervise work on site and ensure costs were minimised (partially upheld);
• (b) failure to maintain contact with the complainant and consult with him about additional works (not upheld);
• (c) failure to ensure that the work was carried out on time and in accordance with the statutory notice schedule (upheld); and
• (d) failure to comply with their customer care charter (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review and reinforce the advice given on site visits and ensure that the guidance makes clear to officers that they are required to record every site visit which is carried out.

Overview

Mr C complained that in calculating the financial assets of his father (Mr A) East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) decided to disregard the transfer of Mr A's home to his son nine years previously for 'love, favour and affection' and included the notional value of the Property in his assets.  As a consequence of this notional capital Mr A was regarded as self-funding for his care home costs.  Mr A had no actual funds and was not able to pay his costs.  Mr C stated that his father was faced with bankruptcy and eviction because of the debts incurred.  Mr C complained that the Council had not acted reasonably in reaching the decision to regard Mr A as in possession of notional capital as they had reached a decision based on assumptions rather than real evidence.  Mr C also complained about the lack of an independent appeal procedure to review his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council acted unreasonably in reaching a decision that it would not fund Mr A's care home costs (upheld); and
• (b) the Council had no effective procedure for reviewing its decision (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their current practice for assessment of nominal capital to ensure that it complies with the spirit of the relevant regulations;
• (ii) reassess Mr A's financial means, excluding the nominal value of the Property; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for the previous lack of formal procedures available to him to progress his complaint.

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

Overview

A company complained about Perth and Kinross Council's handling of their application for a planning agreement and failings in the Council's complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) delay in agreeing a draft Section 75 Agreement (not upheld); and
• (b) failure to comply with their complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council issue the Company with the reply that they should have received in response to their step three complaint, which should explain and apologise for the failure to deal with it in accordance with their published complaints procedure.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that there had been excessive delay by The City of Edinburgh Council in arranging the Social Work Complaints Review Committee (CRC) he had requested.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to arrange the CRC within a reasonable time (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures for arranging Social Work Complaints Review Committees; and
• (ii) make a payment to Mr C of £200 for the unnecessary delay in arranging the CRC.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of his elderly mother (Mrs C), regarding a new refuse collection service that was introduced on the Isle of Arran by North Ayrshire Council.  Mr C was concerned that no public consultation occurred prior to the change in service and that his mother’s individual needs had not been considered.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council failed to:

• (a) consult prior to changing the refuse collection arrangements (not upheld);
• (b) act on Mrs C’s needs (upheld);
• (c) provide suitable refuse arrangements for Mrs C (upheld); and
• (d) act on advice from Mrs C’s general practitioner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) carry out a review of their new assisted pull-out policy and consider whether it is appropriate and sufficiently detailed;
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C for their failure to provide her with an appropriate service from the time at which the new arrangements were introduced until her hospitalisation in May 2005;
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to assess and consider his mother’s individual needs, despite his assertions that she could not use the new service;
• (iv) make a payment of £500 to Mrs C, in recognition of the fact that she was not provided with a service to which she should have been entitled from the time at which the new arrangements were introduced until her hospitalisation in May 2005 and for the time and trouble her son, Mr C, was put to in pursuing a complaint on her behalf; and
• (v) put a system in place to ensure that correspondence received from GPs and other medical professionals on behalf of customers is acknowledged and given due consideration.

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