Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had failed to take reasonable action to inform students of class cancellations and failed to provide adequate alternative provision for the teaching that was not delivered due to industrial action. We found that the university had provided information about class cancellations as early as it could using the agreed internal messaging system for students. We found that the question of whether the proposed alternative provision was adequate to meet the needs of students was a question of academic judgement and was not something SPSO could investigate. Mr C had not raised the practical difficulties of attendance with the university, however, the university had made reasonable provision for the teaching that had not been provided due to industrial action. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the university's handling of a late application they made for extenuating circumstances after their personal circumstances impacted on their attendance at university. C considered that, in handling their application, the university had failed to follow their procedures, failed to communicate clearly and accurately, and failed to ensure their appeal guidelines were clear.

We found that the university had departed from their normal procedures on a number of occasions, but to the benefit of C, allowing for additional late appeals than were required by the regulations. On balance, we considered that the university had communicated clearly and accurately, despite incorrectly suggesting a request for additional information had been made at one stage. We also considered that their appeal guidelines were reasonably clear, given the complex subject matter and academic audience, and were encouraged by the support made available to students wishing to appeal, as well as the procedures for reviewing guideline content. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the investigation of an alleged incident was not performed appropriately. C had been involved in the activities of a voluntary organisation which was commissioned to provide a service on behalf of the council. This organisation investigated the incident after C complained that a member of staff had lied about what happened.

We found that the organisation had provided an appropriately detailed statement of their reasons for not upholding C's complaint. Whilst C was unhappy that they were not interviewed as part of the process, we noted that there was no requirement for this under the complaint procedure and we did not find failings in this respect. We considered that the investigation was performed appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been properly investigated by the school they attended. They felt their child had been made to feel that they were at fault and that in respect of two separate incidents, the school's investigation had been inadequate and had failed to follow the correct procedure. Mr and Mrs C also felt their complaint to the council about this had not been properly investigated and there had been no meaningful scrutiny of the school's actions.

It was explained to Mr and Mrs C that we could not re-investigate the claims of bullying, or determine whether bullying had taken place. We could look at whether the correct procedures were followed by the school and subsequently the council in response to the concerns Mr and Mrs C had raised.

We found that there was a clear record of Mr and Mrs C's reports of incidents of bullying. The school had detailed the action it took to investigate the incidents and was able to provide evidence to support its decisions. This was in line with the council's anti-bullying policy. We found that the council's investigation had considered all the available evidence and that the decision it had reached was reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold either complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a new development. Mr C said that the council did not undertake an independent transport assessment, and did not fully take into account the numerous objections raised, particularly about traffic and road safety. Mr C said that the council used the wrong guidance in assessing the traffic capacity of the road, and did not take into account relevant Scottish Government policy.

The council said that the consultation responses were considered in detail in the report of handling, and they also met with objectors (including Mr C) to discuss his concerns. They said that the relevant policies had been taken into account, and the guidance used to assess road capacity was appropriate.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found evidence that the written consultation responses had been taken into account, and objectors (including Mr C) also had the opportunity to speak to the planning committee who made the decision. We considered that the guidance used to assess traffic capacity was appropriate, and there was evidence that the council had also taken into account relevant Scottish Government policy. While the transport assessment was carried out by the developer (not the council), this is standard practice, and the council had agreed the scope and reviewed the result. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

C and their partner became kinship carers to their grandchild when the child's parent died. C complained that the social work department failed to provide the appropriate information and advice regarding kinship care payments. The council advised that C did not meet the criteria for kinship care assistance as set out in the Scottish Government's guidance.

We found that the council had fulfilled their obligations. They had given the correct advice about C's eligibility for kinship care payments each time C was in contact with them. We found that the council had provided C with adequate information and support in respect of their grandchild's kinship care. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C raised child protection concerns in respect of their child (A) with the emergency social work team. C was concerned about the contact A had with their other parent's partner. The council investigated C's concerns and advised that the nature of the allegations did not reach the threshold of significant harm and that they found no evidence that A was at risk of harm. C complained that the council did not follow their child protection procedures and that they failed to safeguard A.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the council made the appropriate enquiries, and carried out a risk assessment, to reasonably conclude that A was not at risk of harm. We concluded that there was no evidence that the council failed to appropriately respond to the child protection concerns raised. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably installed bollards at the front of a block of flats. The council said this had been done to address inconsiderate parking due to concerns about emergency service vehicle access in the event of a major emergency. The bollards were locked in place, but keys had been provided to the ambulance service and fire service.

Mr C said that the keys were never used and that vulnerable residents were now having to walk a significant distance to access ambulances or taxis. Mr C also complained that the resident's association had not been consulted.

We found no evidence that the emergency services had raised specific concerns about the installation of the bollards or their use. The installation had been carried out under the council's permitted development rights and no planning permission was required. The council were, therefore, entitled to install the bollards.

The council were not obliged to consult with the residents' association. The council had acknowledged that it would have been courteous to inform the association of their intentions and had apologised for this, which was a reasonable and proportionate response to Mr C's concerns. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained about a number of matters relating to the primary school education of their child (A).

C was firstly concerned about the way the school had handled their requests for A to receive educational support. We found that the school had arranged a number of assessments and also met C to discuss their concerns. We were satisfied that the school took into account the evidence available in reaching their view about whether A had support needs. We did not identify failings and we did not uphold this complaint.

C was also unhappy about the level of information provided in relation to applying to a specific secondary school. We concluded that it was more likely than not that C received the standard information issued to parents about the right to make a placing request and details on how to do this. We did not find evidence that C requested additional information and that the council had failed to respond. We did not uphold this complaint.

C further complained about the school contacting the social work service in relation to A. We considered the circumstances of the contact and the council's policy in relation to this. We did not conclude that the school acted inappropriately in the circumstances. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, C raised concern that a council officer provided them with inaccurate information about what would be discussed at a meeting. We did not find evidence that C was misinformed in relation to this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed unreasonably to respond to concerns she raised about the condition of the property and to carry out appropriate repairs to the property, after she took on the tenancy of the property from the council.

In relation to complaint (a), Ms C complained in particular about the council's response to her concerns about the condition of the bathroom and noise insulation. From the available evidence we were satisfied that Ms C had accepted the condition of the bathroom when she signed for the property. Nevertheless, it appeared that the council had carried out a number of general repairs to the bathroom and intended carrying out further repairs. We considered there was evidence that the council responded reasonably to Ms C's concerns about the condition of the bathroom.

Regarding Ms C's concern about noise insulation, we considered it was reasonable of the council to discuss this with Ms C as a noise complaint in the first instance, given that she had reported increasing noise from neighbours. We also noted that the council had provided Ms C with contact details if she wanted to pursue this further as a noise complaint. Having considered the matter carefully, we did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to complaint (b), Ms C's concerns related a number of issues including the property's central heating system and hot water, the bathroom and flooring. We were satisfied from the evidence available that the council had carried out reported repairs to the property in line with their repairs policy. In the circumstances, we did not uphold this complaint.