Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) failed to enforce a planning condition that would have provided him with access to the rear of his property and failed to explain why; that the Council failed to progress alternative arrangements; and failed to respond effectively to his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to enforce a planning condition (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to provide appropriate explanations (upheld);
• (c)  failed to progress alternative arrangements (not upheld); and
• (d)  failed to respond appropriately to a complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for their failures; and
• (ii)  review their procedures to ensure that complaints are dealt with through the complaints process and that staff are reminded of the need to ensure accuracy in replies.

Overview

The complaint from Mr C arose from a dispute over whether a servitude right of access existed for a plot acquired over land purchased in 1986 by Fife Council's predecessor.  Notwithstanding that the dispute arose over a legal issue, there were shortcomings by Fife Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Mr C that I have investigated are that:

• (a)  Fife Council delayed unduly between 4 March 2002 and October 2003 in applying to the Keeper for a rectification of Mr C's title to the Plot (upheld); and
• (b)  the Council failed to take the legal action as suggested by the Keeper to declare the servitude extinguished (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for the identified delay; and
• (ii)  make a payment of £500 to him.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) resided until November 2005 on the ground floor of a modern block of flats which shared a common access to the rear with an adjacent semi-detached former residential building which had later been converted to offices on the ground and first floors.  He objected in 2003 to proposals for change of use of the ground floor to a children's nursery.  The complaints investigated related to the handling of two planning applications made by Mr C himself which were not validated by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) and to the handling of a further application for planning consent to convert the upper floor of the building next door as an extension to the children's nursery.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to deal appropriately with and determine Mr C's applications (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council, in dealing with an application for change of use of the upper floor of the adjacent property, failed to grasp the opportunity to reinforce a policy in their Local Plan for the area (not upheld);
• (c)  Environmental Services when consulted on the application, failed properly to comment on matters of noise and waste removal (not upheld);and
• (d)  the Council as planning authority, failed to have proper regard to the availability of more suitable locations for the nursery (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

On 2 June 2004, the Ombudsman received a complaint from a man (referred to in this report as Mr C) about North Ayrshire Council's (the Council) failure to ensure maintenance of open space. This led to the land adjacent to Mr C’s property becoming overgrown and unkempt.

Overview

The complainants, the parents of a young daughter, raised a number of issues about her pre-school education and about how their complaints about these issues had been handled by the City of Edinburgh Council.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not properly handle Mr C and Ms C's complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i)  apologise for failing to handle the complaints properly;
• (ii)  review the implementation of their complaints procedure to ensure that complaints are fully considered locally unless there are exceptional circumstances; and
• (iii)  take steps to ensure that they clarify to complainants when the local process is complete.

The Council responded that the Director of Children and Families accepted that there were failings and that they were prepared to apologise.  The Director confirmed that he had instructed a major review of his Department's complaints handling procedures.

The complainant (Mr C) was aggrieved about the abolition of discounted rate swimming for pensioners when the Council introduced a new leisure access card in early 2004.

The complaint concerned Renfrewshire Council's (the Council) recovery of alleged overpayment of Housing Benefit payments.

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that South Ayrshire Council (the Council) had failed to take steps to curb anti-social behaviour emanating from youngsters congregating in a school playground next to his home or to take action in respect of specific measures he suggested.

The complaint concerned an allegation of failure by the Council to maintain a customer's request for confidentiality. The complainant was dissatisfied with the Council's handling of her representations on the matter and she claimed that they had failed to reply to her correspondence.

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the handling of his complaints regarding an alleged noise nuisance from dog kennels in the vicinity of his property.