Santa Cruz de La Palma, 1 de febrero de 2016.- El Diputado del Común, Jerónimo Saavedra, ha expresado su preocupación por la repercusión que pueden tener varios fallos del Tribunal Supremo del pasado año 2015, en los que se han declarado nulos los derechos adquiridos por tiempo indefinido para el aprovechamiento por turnos de bienes inmuebles con fines turísticos, modalidad conocida tamb...

Obwohl ein von der Volksanwaltschaft unter Mitwirkung des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie durchgeführter Vergleich entsprechende Regelungen in anderen EU-Ländern ergab, konnte das Bundesministerium lange Zeit nicht zu einer Gesetzesinitiative bewegt werden. Das Bundesministerium argumentierte dabei im Wesentlichen mit der Notwendigkeit, unterschiedlichen örtlichen Gegebenheiten Rechnung tragen zu können.

Nunmehr begrüßt Volksanwalt Fichtenbauer eine Neuregelung, die im Zuge einer Novelle der Straßenverkehrsordnung im Oktober 2015 eingeführt wurde. Demnach darf die Mindesthöhe von Straßenverkehrszeichen im Bereich einer für den Fußgängerverkehr bestimmten Fläche nur in Ausnahmefällen weniger als 2,20 m betragen.

Zwar gilt diese Regelung nur für Straßenverkehrszeichen, die neu aufgestellt werden; die Volksanwaltschaft geht aber davon aus, dass damit in Hinkunft eine potenzielle Gefahrenquelle für blinde Menschen bzw. für Menschen mit Sehbeeinträchtigungen entschärft wird.

Councils must ensure they give the best advice and guidance to care leavers, particularly where their transition to adulthood is complicated by their immigration status or lack of family ties, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has said.

The message comes after the LGO found a number of errors by Royal Borough of Greenwich when handling the immigration status of a Nigerian teenager it was looking after. The council’s failings meant the girl, who is now an adult, has lost a place at university as she cannot access Higher Education while her status remains uncertain and is also unable to work.

The girl was brought to the country in 2006 when she was 10 to live with her mother, her stepfather and his ‘other’ wife. A year later the mother’s visa ran out and in 2010 she returned to Africa, leaving the girl with her stepfather and his wife. The girl became the council’s responsibility as a ‘looked after child’ later in 2010 and was placed with foster carers after her stepfather refused to take her back when she ran away from home.

The council spent a number of months attempting to contact the girl’s mother in Nigeria to clarify her immigration status and start the process of applying for leave to remain. In September 2011 the council noted it should consider getting a solicitor for the girl. By July 2012 the council agreed to support her to pursue an application for leave to remain in her own right.

The council struggled to find a solicitor to take on Legal Aid cases, and it mistakenly believed there was no Legal Aid available for cases such as the girl’s. The council gave the girl’s foster carer a list of solicitors and agreed to pay their fees for advice. At the end of January 2013 the girl received the legal advice arranged by the council.

As she had by then been living in the country for more than seven years, the solicitor offered to put together her Home Office application at a cost of £1,800. The council had confused the rules on leave to remain with those for young people seeking asylum and refused to pay the solicitor’s fees as it mistakenly believed she would have to reapply again when she turned 18.

However, the council did not tell the girl it would not help her until March 2013, just a few weeks before she turned 18 and two weeks before the removal of Legal Aid for cases such as hers.

The girl independently asked another solicitor to help who was able to apply for Legal Aid on her behalf and who intended to apply to the Home Office for the girl. However, the girl panicked as she was approaching 18 and sent in her application without checking it with the solicitor. The application was returned as incomplete. By the time she resubmitted the full application she had passed her 18th birthday.

This had significant consequences. As a child, she would have had to be resident in the UK for only seven years to qualify, however, as an adult she needed to have spent half her life living in the country, and prove there were significant obstacles preventing her from returning to Nigeria.
The Home Office refused her application for leave to remain but it has recently agreed she can make an appeal. The girl believes if it was not for the council’s errors her application for leave to remain would have been made as a child and might have had more chance of success.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said:

“When acting as corporate parents, councils need to provide the support and advice necessary to help the transition out of care and into adulthood. This is particularly crucial for children who do not have the extended family support and community ties that other children might rely upon.

”In this case, because of a number of mistakes and misunderstandings, this girl was left in a vulnerable position at a critical age which affected her life chances.

“I am pleased Greenwich council has agreed to my recommendations, and would urge other councils to examine their procedures to ensure this situation cannot happen in their area.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council should apologise to the girl and provide specialist advice and guidance to social work staff on the different requirements of immigration rules as they apply to children seeking asylum and those seeking leave to remain, and on the council’s duties in this area.

It should devise an action plan to ensure it gives full and proper consideration to its duties to all looked after children who may be in need of legal advice and ensure officers record both the questions raised and any advice given.

The council should also pay the girl £5,000 to acknowledge the distress caused by its failure to provide consistent support and advice to her as a ‘looked after’ child.

The council has accepted the recommendations.

El Defensor del Pueblo ha iniciado una actuación de oficio ante el Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad para conocer cómo afectan las nuevas condiciones para la retirada de dinero en cajeros automáticos a los clientes de las diferentes entidades bancarias.

El Gobierno aprobó a finales del año pasado un real decreto ley que prohíbe cobrar al usuario una doble comisión por sacar dinero de un cajero automático que no pertenezca a su banco. Según la nueva normativa, el banco propietario del cajero usado por un no cliente cobrará una comisión a la entidad emisora de la tarjeta, y ésta podrá repercutírsela o no a su usuario. Sin embargo, el decreto no limita la cantidad que el cliente puede llegar a pagar por ese servicio.

La Institución considera que sería conveniente establecer una tarifa máxima que se corresponda con el servicio prestado y que los bancos proporcionen información clara y precisa de las comisiones que permita a los clientes decidir qué cajero utilizar.

El Defensor señala que los clientes no conocen de antemano la comisión que tendrán que pagar por utilizar cajeros que no son de su entidad. Aunque la tarifa aplicada aparece en la pantalla antes de ser cobrada y el cliente siempre puede negarse a pagarla, esto no soluciona las dudas previas para escoger entre uno u otro cajero.

El Defensor del Pueblo también recuerda que en muchos municipios de España hay un solo banco por lo que clientes de otras entidades se tienen que trasladar a otros pueblos o ciudades para sacar dinero en un cajero automático si quieren evitar la comisión.