Local Government

Summary

C is a council tenant and lives with their family. C complained that the property they were living in suffered from significant problems with damp and mould. C believed that the conditions in the property were adversely affecting the family’s health and damaging their possessions. It was acknowledged by the council that C had been raising concerns for some time.

Although the council had carried out works and surveys on C’s property, damp problems remained. We found that the primary cause of damp had not been identified and the council accepted further works were required, and that the time taken to address the problem had been excessive. We found that the council could not evidence that they had considered the impact on C of their living conditions and it was not clear that the property was treated as a priority in line with the council’s revised damp and mould policy. We upheld C’s complaint that the issues with their property had not been dealt with reasonably.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Develop an action plan, to be shared with C, setting out clearly the steps that they intend to take to address mould and damp in C’s property, and dates for updating C on implementation.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Responses to complainants and the SPSO should be thorough and complete, ideally in one response.

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

C complained to the council that their teenage child (A)'s school had not taken reasonable action following the report of an assault on A and a report of bullying. A reported continued bullying behaviour early in the next term and measures were put in place, such as allowing A to leave classes early. Just over a week later A was involved in a pre-arranged fight with another pupil close to school grounds in school time.

The council’s investigation did not uphold C’s complaints about the action taken following the report of the assault and bullying. C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with SPSO.

We found that the school did not follow their Anti-Bullying Policy following the assault on A. They did not advise C of their decision that the school could take no further action regarding the reports of bullying as there was no concrete evidence of this, and they were imprecise in how they described contact with other parents/carers to C. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A that the school did not follow their Anti-Bullying Policy following the reporting of the assault and that they unreasonably failed to manage the report of the assault. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to C that in the their complaint response they incorrectly stated that, as C knew, the lack of evidence had made it difficult to pursue the matter further. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology availale at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• The school should follow their anti-bullying policy and advise parents/carers of any decisions reached or actions taken following reports of bullying.
• The school should follow their Anti-Bullying Policy in relation to reports of bullying.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council’s complaint investigations take full account of all the circumstances and their conclusions are supported by evidence. The council’s investigations and complaint responses only deal with specific matters once. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.
• The council’s responses to SPSO are properly considered and that it is clearly stated when, on reflection or further consideration, a different view or conclusion has been arrived at.

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

C complained that the council failed to deal with concerns that they raised about alleged anti-social behaviour (ASB) involving a neighbour.

During our investigation, we considered whether or not the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy (ASB policy) in relation to their handling of C’s concerns. We found that the ASB service had appropriately responded to C’s first two calls. However, we found that C raised further concerns with the housing team via email, and no evidence was provided by the council to indicate that this information was appropriately passed on to the ASB service for their consideration. The council also failed to provide this office with evidence that they had contacted Police Scotland in relation to the incidents reported by C. We also found that the council failed to keep C informed and up-to-date. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C also complained that the council failed to handle their complaint reasonably. The council accepted that there were failings in relation to timescales and acknowledgement of C's complaint. We found further failings relating to timescales, communication and record-keeping. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified.The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• Relevant information in relation to alleged anti-social behaviour should be referred to the appropriate service and / or dealt with appropriately and in line with the relevant guidance.The council should communicate with service users in line with the process for addressing ASB.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the council’s complaint handling procedure.We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

Summary

C, an advocate, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the social care assessment carried out by the council, and the council’s handling of A’s complaints. A has several long-term health conditions and requested a social care assessment due to concerns about gaps in their care arrangements. The complaints raised regarding the assessment included the timescales taken for completion of the assessment, whether A’s needs were fully and reasonably assessed, whether legal standards and good practice were appropriately taken into account, and whether the conclusions of the assessment were reasonable.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We determined that the social care assessment was unreasonable. This was because it was not carried out within a reasonable timescale, risks ratings appear to have been changed from ‘substantial’ to ‘moderate’ without explanation, and there was evidence on file to suggest that A’s financial means may have been a factor in assessing their needs and risks. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

We also found that the council’s handling of A’s complaint was unreasonable, as they failed to appropriately log and respond to complaints, failed to contact A to discuss the complaints, failed to read documentation provided by A prior to a complaint meeting, and failed to respond to C and A’s outstanding concerns. We upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• Care assessments should be clear, comprehensive, in line with relevant legislation and guidance, and completed in a timely manner. If risk ratings are changed or there is disagreement as to whether risks meet the critical/substantial eligibility criteria, the council’s position should be fully explained. An individual’s financial position should not influence their needs assessment.
• In relation to complaints handling, we recommended
• Complaint handling should be in line with Model Complaint Handling Procedures. Complaints should be fully addressed, and if there is uncertainty about the issues being complained about, these should be clarified with complainants. Where failures have occurred, these should be acknowledged and apologised for. Where information is provided to inform a complaint meeting, this should be read or an explanation given as to why it will not be read. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow relevant processes and procedures in managing and responding to bullying behaviour experienced by C's child (A). C also complained about the way the council handled their complaint.

In response to C's complaint, the council confirmed that the school had taken appropriate action in responding to incidents and had investigated C's complaint reasonably. C was dissatisfied with the council’s responses and brought their complaint to this office.

We found that the school had not consistently recorded incidents reported in pastoral and other recording systems. Therefore, it was not possible to determine with any certainty what actions the school took in response to concerns and the impact those actions were having both on A and any perpetrators of bullying behaviour. We also found that the council failed to reasonably investigate aspects of C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld C's complaints.

Recommendations

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

• Ensure staff at the relevant school are following the council Anti-bullying Policy and are familiar with the requirements of SEEMIS recording, reporting and monitoring. Staff should understand the importance of keeping accurate records and chronologies of a pupil’s time in school.
• The council should audit the SEEMIS recording and pastoral record keeping in the relevant school to ensure that the school and its staff are meeting the requirements of relevant policies.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Individuals investigating complaints should be aware of the complaints handling process together with the importance of assessing the quality of the evidence available, the impact this has on the ability to respond to a complaint and the learning and improvements which should be identified. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to reports of damp and mould in their property. C also complained about the council’s handling of their complaint.

The council said that they had commissioned an independent survey of the property. They also apologised for delaying with some repairs.

We found that C was responsible for helping to manage the levels of humidity and the temperature in their home by maintaining ventilation and ensuring a reasonable temperature. However, it was clear that there were a number of repairs which the council were responsible for, some of which were delayed and which have generally occurred over an extended period of time. On review, it appeared that they had only been progressed or completed as a result of C’s persistence. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

In terms of complaint handling, we found that the council acknowledged and responded to C's complaint in a timely manner. However, we found that they failed to provide a full and informed response to a later complaint. On balance, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in this report. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.
• The council should clarify for C the works which are still to be completed and provide a timeframe for completion of the repairs.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint investigations should be managed in accordance with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure https://www.spso.org.uk/the-model-complaints-handling-procedures. Complaint investigations should fully investigate the matters of complaint made and, where appropriate, timeous action should be taken to rectify matters.
• The council should have effective systems in place to ensure that repairs are completed timeously.

Summary

C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who is the kinship carer of their grandchild (B). B came to live with A from England. C complained that the council failed to assess A in relation to the kinship care arrangement in place for B and failed to respond to A's complaint about entitlement to kinship care allowance. C was seeking backdated kinship care allowance for A. The council stated that it was the responsibility of the authority in England as they were the ones who placed B in A's care.

After obtaining initial social work advice, we opened the complaint at investigation. In response to the complaint notice letter, the council agreed to apologise to A, make a backdated kinship care payment of £17,559.26 and make future monthly payments. They also agreed to update their kinship care allowance policy/procedure.

C was satisfied with this response and we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to carry out and progress police checks for two individuals who have contact with their grandchild.

After notifying the council of our investigation, they agreed to provide C with a fuller apology and assurance that this would not happen again. C was happy with this outcome. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to assess their housing application in accordance with their policies and procedures. C and their partner had two children and shared their bedroom with the youngest child. C submitted a request for rehousing. The council awarded C a priority band 2 (with 1 being the highest and 4 the lowest). C then submitted medical information regarding their mental health to support their application for rehousing. However, the council advised C that they did not meet the criteria for a band 1 priority and that their current award of band 2 was correct and in line with the allocation policy.

C submitted an appeal, along with a further supporting letter from their mental health nurse. The council responded stating C’s current band 2 status was deemed appropriate and in line with the established policy guidelines.

We found that the council’s position was not in line with the allocation policy. We were concerned by the council’s statement that band 2 was correct, that there would be no band 1 award on the basis of mental health and that they had been applying this reasoning consistently. Their policy states that Band 1 is awarded to those applicants whose home is causing significant problems due to a physical, medical, or mental health problem or disability. We also found that C did not receive timely responses from the council. Their responses were delayed and C had to chase several times for a response. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of the complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• Housing applications should be assessed in line with the Allocation Policy.
• The council should ensure that correspondence is responded to within a reasonable amount of time and in line with published service standards.

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

C complained about the council’s decsion to build a prison facility next to their and others’ property. C’s complaint covers the council’s planning and environmental health services.

Regarding the planning process, C considered the council had failed to safeguard neighbouring residents when granting planning permission. C said the council did not consider the proximity of the houses to the prison and the soil type present on the site. They also felt that a Noise Impact Assessment should be carried out. C said this resulted in damage to property, issues with noise and vibration, and the loss of house value.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council had carried out their planning obligations, in line with relevant legislation, guidance and policies. We recognised that C disagreed with the council’s position but concluded that the council handled the planning applications reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

In respect of the environmental health service, C said that the council failed to safeguard them during the construction of the new facility. They explained that they experienced noise and vibration issues. C said these vibrations caused visible damage to their property.

We found that the council’s environmental health service acted reasonably in response to concerns raised by C. It was for the council to decide whether the threshold was met for noise and vibration from the construction site to be considered a statutory nuisance. We were satisfied that the council had provided reasonable explanations for why this threshold was not met. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.