Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning application reasonably. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, although there had been some minor errors in the information provided by the council to the planning committee, these had not had a material impact on the decisions reached. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly, and that whilst we recognised that Mr C was concerned and distressed about the handling of the planning application and the proposed development, his disagreement with the professional judgement of the council's planning officers was not evidence of maladministration. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the service provided by Bridgewater Housing Association (BHA) and the care and repair service they provided when C sought to make alterations and adaptations to their home, which is privately owned. This included changes to their front door and the installation of a ramp. We noted that it is the role of BHA to facilitate repairs. They do not guarantee the quality of the work or assess if the work carried out meets the needs of the client.

We found that BHA carried out a tendering process in accordance with their written procedures. We found BHA communicated with the contractor regarding when work was required to be done.

In relation to the front door the contractor varied the contract without notifying C or BHA in advance. We noted that C had a dispute with the private contractor and that BHA communicated with both parties to attempt to facilitate an agreement between them. In relation to the ramp this was signed off as meeting C's needs by their Health and Social Care Partnership. We considered that it was reasonable for BHA to rely on this information.

We found BHA had reasonably facilitated the works to the door and ramp to the property, in accordance with procedures that they were required to follow, and limited to what they were responsible for. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us in her own right and on behalf of her mother (Mrs A).

Mrs A was visited at home by a carer, who alleged that Ms C assaulted them during their visit. The partnership decided that the adult support and protection (ASP) investigation criteria were met because Mrs A's care package had been put in jeopardy. The partnership decided to activate their ASP procedures. The ASP investigation concluded that Mrs A was not at risk and that no further action was required. Ms C complained that the partnership's decision to carry out an ASP investigation was unreasonable and she raised concerns about how it was carried out.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the partnership's decision to undertake an investigation was reasonable, as they had an obligation to assess if Mrs A was at risk. We also found that it was carried out in a reasonable manner. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C, who has a disability, attended hospital to have an operation. C was signed-off as medically fit for discharge, however, C did not consider that they could return to their home, which is privately owned. C complained that there was a failure to assess if their home met their needs because adaptations had been carried out which were not suitable. C considered that there was a failure to keep them advised about plans for discharge. C also considered that there had been a failure to assess what support they would require upon discharge. C considered that alternative accommodation should have been provided.

We found that an assessment stated that C was able to access their home following the adaptations carried out. We noted that the partnership had offered to carry out a further assessment on a few occasions, to give C a second opinion, and that C had refused to take part in this. We found reasonable steps had been taken by the partnership to carry out an assessment and offer a second opinion. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C had refused to return home from hospital, despite the partnership informing C that they were medically fit for discharge and explaining the reasons that C should go home. We considered that C had been advised of the plans to discharge them and that they had been reassured about what process would follow in the event that they were to be discharged. We noted that a discharge meeting would be set up, a plan for discharge made and an assessment of C's ability to manage at home would be carried out. As access to the property was reasonable, and C did not have any personal care needs, we considered that the partnership's position, that C did not require alternative accommodation because they could access their home, to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C contacted the partnership to request local authority funding towards care home costs for his wife (Mrs A). The partnership carried out a New Threshold calculation (calculation that determines an individual's entitlement to funding) for Mrs A, confirmed she was eligible for local authority funding and detailed their contribution to her care home costs. Mr C subsequently requested a review of Mrs A's New Threshold calculation. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the New Threshold calculation carried out. He complained that the partnership had failed to explain their position on Mrs A's financial assessment and as a result he lacked confidence in the figures arrived at by the partnership. He also complained that some of the letters he had received had contained inaccurate information and had misled him in connection with Mrs A's funding.

We found that the partnership had met with Mr C on a number of occasions to explain the New Threshold calculation and had carried out re-calculations in response to further information provided by Mr C. We found no evidence that the partnership had not acted in line with their financial assessment processes and relevant guidance when handling Mrs A's New Threshold calculation and financial assessments. In relation to the letters, the partnership have acknowledged that these could have been worded better and have made improvements as a result. We did not uphold the complaint.