Local Government

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.

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.