Local Government

Summary

C complained that the council did not properly consider their concerns about work being carried out on a neighbour’s summerhouse by someone that they believed was unqualified. C also said that the council inaccurately stated that no building warrant was required for the summerhouse.

The council advised C of the actions that they had taken in response to C's reports and explained why they considered that the summerhouse did not require a building warrant. In relation to electrical and gas safety concerns, the council explained that the necessary gas and electrical certification would be requested as part of the completion process when a completion certificate was applied for. They also advised that any concerns about illegal gas works could be made to Gas Safe Register.

We took independent advice from a planning and building standards adviser. We found that the information in the council's response was reasonable and adequately covered the council’s position. We also found that the council reasonably considered and investigated C's reports of works being undertaken by an unqualified individual. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C owns a holiday let in a conservation area. The adjacent, terraced property was demolished but not rebuilt, leaving an unsightly gap. The site is now for sale, causing uncertainty and delays. They complained that this had been allowed to happen, citing financial loss.

C advised that the council had failed to enforce the conditions of the Conservation Area Consent, as demolition had occurred without the required construction contracts being in place. They noted that there were no provisions to ensure effective communication, property protection, or insurance. They stated that the council’s departments lacked coordination, noting that Building Standards had been present during demolition but had not alerted Planning and the demolition had not been stopped.

The council agreed that although the Planning Consent conditions had been met, the Conservation Conditions had not been met. They stated that the applicant was responsible for compliance with the conditions of the Conservation Area Consent. They acknowledged that they could have reminded the applicants and would provide training to planning officers. However, there was no statutory requirement to do so. They were now taking appropriate enforcement action as a breach had occurred. They advised they had fulfilled their statutory requirements in terms of communication and advertisement and that it was not within their remit to stipulate communication, protection or insurance between neighbours. They added that Building Standards do not have a remit to regulate compliance with planning conditions.

We took independent advice from a planning consultant. We found that it was the applicant’s responsibility to comply with conservation conditions, as this was stated in bold on the Conservation Area Consent decision notice. We considered that it was not up to Building Standards to alert Planning to the demolition. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint as we did not consider that maladministration had been demonstrated.

Summary

C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to replace their kitchen, which was outdated and in a state of disrepair, and their windows, which were aluminium framed, did not have working vents, and as such were promoting the growth of mould. C gave up the tenancy due to concerns about the condition of the property, the potential health impact, and their frustrations with the delays. C complained that the council remedied both longstanding issues very shortly after, to allow the property to be re-let. C also complained that the council’s complaints response was inaccurate.

The council had stated that C’s kitchen was due to be replaced, however, that there had been a backlog due in part to the pause in all but essential works during the pandemic. They said that when C moved out the kitchen was replaced by a team whose role was to prepare tenancies to be re-let, who had a different caseload and worked to different timescales. The council stated that C’s windows had been replaced as part of a broader programme of window and door replacements. They said that this had been communicated to C earlier in the year, and that the work had not been brought forward because the tenancy had been vacated.

We found that a referral had been made for a new kitchen to be installed approximately a year prior to C moving out. It was also evident that the council had engaged with C regarding the condition of the windows, and that they had instructed a contractor to survey the windows and to make minor repairs. It was communicated to C on a number of occasions that the windows were due to be replaced and a survey had been carried out in preparation. It was also apparent that C’s property had been prioritised as part of the scheme. As the council had taken steps to investigate these issues and make the necessary referrals and preparations, acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 and the council’s discretion with respect to planning large scale works, overall, we did not consider there to be evidence of maladministration or service failure and C’s complaint was not upheld.

However, we did find evidence of a number of inaccuracies in the council’s complaints responses to C and therefore did not consider the council’s complaints handling to have been in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. As such 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/meaningful-apologies.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should be accurate, objective and proportionate, in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure.

Summary

C complained to the council about a number of aspects of the council’s handling of a planning application for development on a site opposite C’s home, including that the Report of Handling was not reasonable as it did not reference any assessment of how waste would be managed and stored on the site. The council told C that the specific materials that they had mentioned, manure and old bedding, their storage and management, had not been addressed in the Report as they were not part of the application.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the contents of the planning application meant that the council were entitled to take the view that their policy on waste management requirements for new development were not determinative in this instance and that not explicitly mentioning this in the Report did not make it unreasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

C also complained about various aspects of the council’s response to their complaints. In some cases, we found that the council provided responses which were not reasonable,including responses that were not clear and did not include reasonable explanations, responses that raised uncertainty about planning matters, a response that had been incorrect, not responding to clear concerns C had raised and not confirming whether they considered specific planning conditions had been met. We upheld the complaint that the council did not respond reasonably to C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that they did not respond reasonably to C’s complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council respond reasonably to complaints.

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.