Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his correspondence about planning and enforcement and other issues in relation to land near his home.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, in general, the council had tried to address the issues Mr C raised in his correspondence. However, we identified a number of failings:

• the council did not provide an adequate explanation to Mr C about their delay in progressing matters in relation to a planning breach

• they did not advise him that he should notify them of a planning breach through their electronic enforcement system

• their response could have been clearer in relation to whether action that was being taken would resolve the enforcement issues

• their response incorrectly stated that the enforcement case must be suspended until planning applications had been determined

• they did not provide an adequate response to his comments about aggregation in relation to procurement

• they should have taken further action in relation to comments made in advertising by one of their contractors

• they failed to keep him updated on the delay in responding to his complaint.

In view of these failings, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in relation to the handling of his correspondence to them. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.
• Investigate and provide a response to Mr C's comments about aggregation.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• It should be clear from the Council's Enforcement Charter that anyone who did not make the initial complaint regarding a breach of consent, will not be kept informed of actions taken by the council to address that breach or of the outcomes. The Charter should provide a link to the enforcement register so that customers can track progress of any enforcement action themselves.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's appointment system for electrical and gas safety checks. In particular, that the council unreasonably attempted to access his property and did not offer flexibility over the time and dates of their appointments. Mr C also complained that the council failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into his complaints and that their communcation was poor.

We found that the council letters lacked clarity and gave incorrect information that the safety checks would be considered emergency repairs. We noted that the response to Mr C's complaint was delayed with vague communication and that there was a lack of referral on correspondence to the next stage of the complaints process. We also found that the council lacked flexibility in their approach to the safety checks and failed to follow their processes, incorrectly attempting to access Mr C's property when they had not exhausted all previous steps outlined in their process. Therefore, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unacceptable delay in responding to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in theSPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Review the content of appointment letters for annual gas and electricty checks to accurately reflect the process of inspection, the process when access becomes a problem, and the specific time or time window of the scheduled appointment.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Communication regarding a complaint should clearly explain the stage which is being responded to. Staff should also ensure customers have been appropriately referred to the next stage in the process at that point.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably charged for additional works he had not agreed to, or been advised of, following on from his initial agreement for smaller works to be carried out by the council to his property. Mr C said that the increased charge was unreasonable.

We found that, having decided to charge Mr C for the additional works, the council did not follow their own procedures in how they authorised, inspected and charged for the repair or communicated with Mr C. There was also a delay of six months after completing the works before the council queried the increased invoice from the council's building maintenance division, and invoiced Mr C. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not following the correct process. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Consider whether a deduction of the administrative charge is appropriate in light of the failings identified.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Ensure works invoices which have increased substantially are queried within a reasonable timescale.
• Ensure invoices are issued to owner occupiers within a reasonable timescale.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about social work involvement in the care her late mother received whilst in a care home. Mrs C considered that the way the council handled her complaint was unreasonable and that the action plan they created as a result of the complaints investigation did not adequately address the failings identified.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint about the handling of her complaint as we found it had not been acknowledged within the appropriate timescales.

We took independent advice in relation to the council's action plan from a social work adviser. We found that whilst the action plan points themselves may have been reasonable, insufficient information had been supplied to Mrs C to allow her to understand how these had been implemented by the council. We also found that the action plan did not cover an area where failings had been identified. We considered this was unreasonable as the council had an adult support and protection role in this connection. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the complaints handling failing and for failing to provide Mrs C with information to evidence how the action plan would be implemented. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Issue an amended action plan that shows how the council have learned from Mrs C's complaint and will prevent failings from recurring.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Timescales for acknowledging complaints as set out in the complaints handling procedure should be met.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the association had responded unreasonably to his complaints of anti-social behaviour and his request to move home in response to this.

We found that the association had not followed procedures as set out in their anti-social behaviour and allocation policies. In relation to the complaints of anti-social behaviour, we found that timescales were not met, there was no evidence that Mr C was supported or a resolution sought and Mr C was not communicated with reasonably. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

The association failed to respond reasonably to Mr C's request to move home. It was found that Mr C was not informed of the outcome of his request to move, there was no evidence that the request was discussed with the Area Housing Manager or Area Director as was procedure, or that Mr C was notified of the decision to refuse his request. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not following the Anti-Social Behaviour policy and the Management Transfer process, including not informing him of their decision in regard to his management transfer request. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The association should follow the relevant procedure when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour.
• The association should follow process when responding to requests for a management transfer.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the lack of response from his housing association to concerns he raised that second hand smoke from a neighbouring property was entering his home. Mr C was unhappy that the issue had been ongoing for over a year without any action being taken against his neighbour. The association advised that they had attended Mr C's property, met with his neighbour, arranged for the local authority's environmental health services to conduct an inspection and hired a private company to conduct a further inspection. The association advised that none of these actions had been able to provide evidence to support Mr C's complaint about noxious fumes in the property.

We found that the association responded appropriately to Mr C's initial complaint about the fumes. We noted that following this, Mr C had identified that the fumes were strongest during the evening and through the night and, therefore, any daytime inspections are unlikely to find evidence as the odours will have dispersed. We found that it took the association a further seven months before an inspection of the property was arranged and a further five months before the environmental health service attended the property at night. The findings of the night inspection were that no fumes were observed and the matter was considered closed. We accepted that the investigation had been unable to find evidence to support Mr C's complaint of noxious smells. However, we considered that the inspection should have been carried out much sooner. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to inspect his property sooner and for the additional stress this caused him. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Review existing procedures to determine if more clarity should be included (e.g. in correspondence sent to tenants) to explain how an issue is being treated (i.e. a repair, anti-social behaviour, general enquiry).

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the association did not respond within a reasonable timescale to his reports of water ingress in his home.

We found that the association's repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be responded to within four hours, urgent repairs within three working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. The association provided no evidence to support how Mr C's reports were categorised, however, it took two months for investigations to be carried out to Mr C's reports of a fault, outwith all timescales. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not responding to his reports of a fault with the roof within a reasonable timescale. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Ensure processes are followed to respond to reports of a fault.
• Ensure repairs are categorised as either emergency, urgent or routine.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the advisory disabled parking spaces outside the multi-story flat where he lived, were repeatedly impeded by other cars that were parked inappropriately. Mr C was unhappy as he was unable to get in and out of the spaces freely and he believed that his housing association were not doing enough to ensure that they were making reasonable adjustments for his disability. He also stated that inappropriate parking was a breach of the tenancy agreement.

The association responded by stating that the spaces were only advisory and, therefore, they did not have enforcement powers due to the spaces being on land privately owned by them. They made enquiries to the council about obtaining a traffic regulation order, which would allow them to take appropriate enforcement action. They explained that this would involve a long consultation process and at a significant cost to the association and, therefore, they were still in the process of considering this matter going forward. In the meantime, they advised that residents had been lettered highlighting that the spaces in question were to be kept for blue badge holders and that people should park courteously. They also asked concierge staff to monitor the situation and ask people if they would move.

Mr C felt that the matter was still ongoing and brought his complaint to us. He was concerned that the association were not taking all the action available to them. We acknowledged that the association did not have legal powers to enforce the spaces. However, we noted that the association's litigation team had accepted that people subject to the tenancy agreement were breaching its terms by parking inappropriately, that they could be advised of this breach and that further action may be forthcoming. We found that a reasonable adjustment by the association would be to require people to move their cars and take appropriate follow-up action. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the distress and inconvenience he experienced with regards to parking problems. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The association should revisit their responsibilities in making reasonable adjustments under the Equalities Act 2010 and take action to ensure disabled parking spaces are free from obstruction from inconsiderate parking.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Miss C and another member of her family applied for welfare powers for an adult relative. As part of that process, a Mental Health Officer (MHO) interviewed Miss  C over the phone. When Miss C saw the MHO's report, she felt what she said during the interview had not been reflected accurately. Miss C complained that the partnership refused to change the report.

We found that the partnership concentrated on the issue of what was actually said or not said during the phone interview. We were critical of this approach, as it meant the central issue of what was the correct position in relation to Miss C's adult relative was overlooked. We looked at the MHO's handwritten note of the phone interview, which we found supported Miss C's view of the phone interview. The partnership did not consider the handwritten note as being the best available record of the call, which we found to be a failure on their part.

We accepted that the opportunity to review a draft of the report was not possible in the circumstances. However, as a matter of good practice, we expected that an interview would start with an explanation of what would happen with the information provided at the interview, and would end with the interviewer reflecting back to the interviewee their understanding of the points made, and seeking confirmation of that understanding. This is standard interviewing procedure, and one we expect all staff conducting interviews to be aware of. We upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for a failure to properly investigate and respond to her concerns. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Staff should be aware of and conduct interviews in line with good interviewing practice.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff investigating complaints at stage 2 of the complaints process should be sufficiently trained in good investigative practice.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care her mother (Mrs A) received at St John's Hospital. Mrs C complained about the number of ward moves that Mrs A experienced. Mrs A had dementia and Mrs C said that the number of ward moves caused Mrs A to become disorientated. Mrs C also complained about the personal care that Mrs A received and the communication from nursing staff.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that:

• the number of ward moves that Mrs A experienced was unreasonable in view of her reduced cognitive function and delirium (sudden confusion)

• the board had failed to keep adequate records regarding the risk assessment and decision making for Mrs A's ward moves and how Mrs A and her family were informed of the ward moves

• the board failed to adequately assess and document Mrs A's care needs. In particular there was no care plan in place to cover Mrs A's personal hygiene needs

• a “Getting to Know Me” document was not in use during Mrs A's admission to St John's Hospital.

In light of the above we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the number of ward moves that Mrs A experienced, the failure to keep adequate records regarding Mrs A's ward moves, the failure to adequately assess and document Mrs A's care needs and complete a 'Getting to Know Me' document. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The movement of patients with cognitive impairment between wards should be in line with national standards and guidance.
• The reason for moving patients to another bed, room or ward should be clearly documented and shared with the patient and/or their representative in accordance with Standard 15 of the Care of Older People in Hospital Standards.
• Nursing assessments and care plan documentation should clearly document the care needs and preferences of patients.
• The 'Getting to Know Me' document should be completed and used to inform a person-centred care plan.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.