Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was banned indefinitely from attending a swimming pool run by South Ayrshire Council (the Council) following an incident with a swimming instructress on 9 December 2004.  Her husband, Mr C, pursued a complaint to the Council on her behalf, the outcome of which was delayed by action taken by the Instructress.  After giving written assurances, Mrs C's ban was lifted in June 2005.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

(a)  the Council failed to address and properly investigate the complaint made on Mrs C's behalf against the Instructress (not upheld);

(b)  the decision to ban Mrs C from the Pool was precipitate and was taken without hearing her account (partially upheld); and

(c)  after being informed of the Procurator Fiscal's decision in relation to a report by the instructress, the Council did not re-examine conflicting accounts of members of staff relating to the incident (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that a suitably worded apology be issued in respect of the initial letter sent to Mr C and this was done before this report was published.  The Ombudsman also recommended that steps should be taken to avoid a repetition.

Overview

The complainant is the Chairman of the Tenants' and Residents' Association of a multi-storey building and made his complaint on their behalf.  They were unhappy about North Lanarkshire Council's handling of the internal communication system to the concierge station.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a)  the Council failed to repair the internal communication system to the concierge station (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to repair the internal door entry system (not upheld); and
• (c)  the Council failed to ensure the provision of a proper communication system for the lifts in the event of breakdown (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

The complainants complained about what they considered was a lack of formal process for altering the geographic lines of planning zones in the area around their home.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns over the handling of his stepson's application for Housing and Council Tax Benefit. Issues relating to the subsequent handling of the complaint by The City of Edinburgh Council were also raised as complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  adequacy of the explanation by Council staff for the failure to respond to the complaint (not upheld);
• (b)  adequacy of explanation by staff regarding failure to process Request for Review (not upheld);
• (c)  the investigation of the complaint (not upheld); and
• (d)  contradictory nature of information provided regarding Housing Benefit application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the standard of classroom accommodation in his daughter's Primary School and the way those complaints had been dealt with by the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  the Council's alleged failure to address seven concerns first identified by Mr C in an email of 6 September 2004 within a reasonable timescale (partially upheld); and
• (b)  promises of action to be taken given in correspondence were either delayed or not implemented at all (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council review their complaints handling procedures for complaints concerning their services to children and young people.

The Council responded that the Director of Children and Families had instructed a major review of the Department's complaints handling procedures.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that the Cairngorms National Park Authority (the Authority) failed to treat his planning application in a fair and consistent manner, in that it called in his application but had not called in a similar one; that the time taken to decide the application was excessive; and that the Authority failed to decide the application at the site visit after saying they would.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  failure to treat Mr C's application in a fair and consistent manner compared to another (not upheld); and
• (b)  the time taken to determine the application was excessive and the Authority failed to make a decision at a site visit after saying they would (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

This complaint concerns dissatisfaction with the handling of a complaint about a decision to refuse an application for payment under the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  two steps of the investigation process were carried out by the same Council employee (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to provide Mr C with details of the changes in legislation that affected his  application (not upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to address Mr C's complaint that the Disability Living Allowance should not be taken into account in determining the application (upheld); and
• (d)  the Council failed to provide Mr C with the correct information about their complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Fife Council apologise personally to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Fife Council accepts the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

This investigation regards a complaint from the Secretary (Mr C) of a voluntary association (the Association) about the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s handling of the Association's objections to applications which affected the setting of a Grade A listed building.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  alleged failure to consider the Association's objections (partially upheld); and
• (b)  alleged failure to refer the applications to Scottish Ministers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Council accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation that the Council apologise to Mr C for their failure adequately to articulate the Association's objections.  They also informed her of changes they had introduced to the format of committee reports on planning applications.

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.