Local Government

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.

Overview

The complainants claimed that, in refusing to fully fund the care of a family member, Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) were acting in contravention of the legislation on free personal and nursing care and guidance issued by the Scottish Executive.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that no charge for care should have been made and that, in making such a charge, the Council contravened the statutory regulations on the provision of full personal and nursing care and failed to take account of guidance issued by the Scottish Executive (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) considered she had to leave her former Council tenancy and sought advice from a housing officer.  She said she was advised that if she gave up the tenancy and moved in with her parents she would be re-housed within six months.  An offer of re-housing was not made and Mrs C complained to this office that she had been misled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C was misled into giving up her tenancy on the basis that she would be re-housed within six months (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council supplied conflicting information which led her to believe that she had been overlooked for re-housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.  However, she expresses the hope that, given Mrs C's difficult current housing circumstances, the Council continue to assist her toward being re-housed at an early date.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that, without checking its veracity, the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) accepted, and kept on his file, information implying that he had been convicted and imprisoned for murder.  He said that the Council then passed this information to a third party, which resulted in his and his partner's fertility treatment being suspended.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council passed unsubstantiated and incorrect information to a third party (not upheld);
• (b) the Council's Head of Service was allowed to remain at a Social Work Complaints Review Hearing while his appeal was decided (not upheld); and
• (c) in reporting their decision, the Council made an inappropriate reference to the Bichard Enquiry (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) complained that they had been misled into believing that a planning case officer from Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority) would visit them at their home to view the impact of their neighbours' proposed development.  This did not happen and they were aggrieved to learn subsequently that consent had been granted by officers under delegated powers.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that a planning  case officer from the Park Authority failed to visit Mr and Mrs C at their home to discuss their concerns prior to their neighbours' planning application being determined (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

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.