Local Government

Summary

C is the grandparent of A and B, whose parents were separated. C complained about the actions of the council after A and B’s parent (X) submitted an authorised absence request from school to spend some time abroad. C considered that the council failed to check with A and B’s other parent (Y) that they were in agreement with the proposed absence from school and that the council failed to reasonably assess the risks when granting the authorised absence request.

C complained that the council failed to reasonably assess the authorised absence request. We found that the council failed to reasonably assess the authorised absence request as relevant paperwork was not completed or a rationale documented to support their decision. We upheld the complaint.

C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to inform Y of the request. We found that the council reasonably followed their policy in relation to communicating with Y. We did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to follow procedure in considering the authorised absence request. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available atwww.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• When considering authorised absence requests appendix 4 should be completed along with a copy of the pupil’s attendance record.

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 communication from the council's social work department relating to C’s involvement in the Looked After Child (LAC) review process. C held parental rights and responsibilities for their child. C raised concerns about not being invited to attend a review meeting and not receiving a legible copy of a relevant report in advance of the meeting. In their response to the complaint, the council explained a watermark was incorrectly applied in the wrong font colour and apologised for this error.

We found that C was reasonably informed of the arrangements for the LAC review meeting and how they could contribute to it. In the month prior to the review meeting, the council’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) contacted C. The role of an IRO is to work autonomously to manage and chair LAC reviews for children who are looked after and accommodated by the council. The IRO told C by email that there would be no option for C to attend the LAC review meeting, and C could submit their views via a proforma. C received a copy of the relevant report prior to the review meeting.

We found that the council had reasonably acknowledged, apologised for and rectified the error of the incorrectly applied watermark. Overall, we found that the provision of the relevant report, proforma that invited C’s views and email correspondence demonstrated that the council intentionally communicated with C in line with their responsibilities to seek the views of C as a person holding parental rights and responsibilities, in line with the relevant legislation and the council’s procedure. On this basis, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to investigate and respond appropriately to incidents of bullying behaviour towards their child (A). C raised concerns about an incident where A’s private information was accessed by other pupils, and about the school’s implementation of a plan to help support A. C also complained about the way the school had handled previous concerns of bullying behaviour directed towards A.

The council noted that A’s information had been accessed and investigated the circumstances, but acknowledged that C did not accept the most likely explanation. However, the council recognised that the school had not supported A as they would have wished and upheld parts of the complaint regarding the support offered to A and the failure to implement an agreed support plan.

C was unhappy with the council’s response and brought their complaint to our office. We found that, whilst the school had reasonably investigated incidents relating to the accessing of A’s private information, the record keeping of the investigation and response to the incident was unreasonable. In addition, we found that the school had failed to record behaviours A experienced as bullying, failed to record incidents on the appropriate systems and did not appropriately record actions taken in response to bullying behaviour.

We found that the council could not adequately evidence the supports in place for A, or actions taken in response to bullying concerns. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Under our general powers to investigate and consider complaints handling we determined that the council’s investigation of C’s complaint was unreasonable given that it had not identified the issues of unreasonable record keeping during the investigation. We made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A for the failures we have found. 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:

• 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 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, the complainant, is a tenant of the council. They complained about the council’s refusal of an application for mutual exchange with another council tenant. C found out through the other tenant that the council had told them the application was refused because of ‘management concern for C’. C contacted the council to enquire about the decision and they were advised that they would receive a written response detailing their right to appeal. C heard nothing further and submitted a complaint.

In their complaint response the council apologised that C had not received a letter confirming that the application had been refused. The council said that their officers had worked within the relevant legislation and policies/procedures to refuse an exchange, on the basis that complaints had been made to the Safer Neighbourhood Team in connection with C’s tenancy.

In response to our enquiries, the council provided us with their Mutual Exchange Policy, Mutual Exchange Process Map and Mutual Exchange Guidance Note. The council said that they had followed their policy and provided more detail about alleged anti-social behaviour on the part of the tenant.

We found that the council had failed to follow their policy when considering C’s application. They should have carried out a home visit, sent out a letter with their decision, and given adequate reasons for the decision. The council’s failure to issue their decision on time also prevented C from being able to appeal the decision. Taking all of this into account, we upheld the 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.
• The council should reconsider the application. In the event that the mutual exchange is no longer an option, the council should consider whether any alternative remedy is available to C. If, after an assessment in line with their policy, the council decide to refuse the mutual exchange, their decision must clearly explain why they have taken this decision.

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

• The council’s staff understand the steps that they require to follow when a mutual exchange application is received.

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 social work service during the pre-adoptive process of their child (A). C complained about the council’s decision to temporarily suspend A’s nursery placement and about the council’s communication of their decision. C complained that the council failed to have an appropriate level of contact with A during the pre-adoptive process, and that the council failed to reasonably prepare and submit a report which is required from an adoption agency for court, regarding the suitability of the prospective adoptive parents.

The council apologised for failing to communicate information about A’s suspended nursery placement at a time when open and honest communication could take place.

We took independent advice from a social worker with experience in fostering and adoption. We found that the council’s decision to temporarily suspend A’s nursery placement was made without consultation with A’s pre-adoptive carers or nursery, who should have been part of the decision-making process. We upheld this point of C’s complaint. We found the council’s social work visits to A did not meet the frequency or timing set out in the council’s policy or legislation. We upheld this point of C’s complaint. We found the council prepared and submitted the required report within the statutory timescale and reasonably communicated with C about the report. We did not uphold this point of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to the complainant for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

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

• Social workers should visit children in pre-adoptive placements in line with their statutory requirements as per the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, and the council’s procedure.
• The social work department should appropriately consult with key partners in pre-adoptive placements (such as carers and nursery) on decisions related to a child’s care, and communication with partners should be timely.

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 approved an application for non-material variation (NMV) to a planning consent, despite the variation significantly altering the originally agreed plot levels and having major effects on existing properties that bordered onto the new development. We took independent planning advice, which highlighted that it is it is ultimately a matter for the planning authority to determine whether or not a proposed change to a planning application is material. However, there should be clear and transparent records to support the council’s decision making and justify their decision. The council accepted that was lacking in this case, in terms of the content of the worksheet for the NMV.

We found that the NMV worksheet did not contain sufficient information to explain why the council concluded that the change was non-material. The records did not adequately demonstrate that the council considered the potential impact on neighbouring properties, and continued compliance with the relevant Development Plan in this regard. It was not demonstrated e.g. via adequate / relevant cross sections through the site, how the council concluded that there was sufficient separation distances between new and existing properties. It would also have been good practice for the council to keep a record of any site visit carried out, recognising that there is no statutory requirement to visit the site.

While we found that the council failed to keep adequate records to justify their decision, it was not possible for us to determine that the decision to approve the changes as a NMV was incorrect. That remained a discretionary matter for the council. However, on the basis of poor record keeping, we concluded that the council’s handling of the NMV application was unreasonable, and we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the issues identified in this decision notice. 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:

• Worksheets for future applications for NMVs should provide sufficient detail to make it clear why a particular conclusion has been reached, including continued compliance with all relevant Development Plan policies. When a site visit is carried out in respect of an application, a record should be kept of that visit. The council should ensure that they have sufficient information to determine the application e.g. adequate / relevant cross sections.

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, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who had looked after their grandchild since the sudden death of the child’s parent (B). A approached the council for both general and financial assistance. In particular, to support them in obtaining a residence order (a court order that regulates the arrangements made about where a child lives). The council decided that A was not eligible for financial support to apply for an order or for a kinship care allowance. A was later granted a residence order.

C complained to the council. The council confirmed that A had not been initially entitled to a kinship care allowance. However, following the granting of the order a kinship allowance was granted and was backdated to the date of the order.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the assessment carried out by the council when the child was placed in A’s care was reasonable and in line with guidance and legislation. However, there had been a failure to initiate appropriate follow-up and support when A contacted them again a few months after the assessment. We also found that there had been a failure to action referrals to other agencies who could have offered support to A. In addition, we found that there had been a failure to provide written evidence that they had fully reviewed the information provided by A when they contacted them after the assessment or that they had contacted A at the conclusion of the review. Finally, there had been a failure to capture critical information in the case records. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A 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:

• Staff should be reminded that kinship procedures are not only about financial support but about offering practical parenting advice and support to kinship carers. Staff should be reminded of the importance of recording critical information, including action taken and decision-making consideration in case notes.

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 social work did not adequately safeguard their child (A) when they disclosed that they had been a victim of assault. C also complained that they were not informed of the incident. The council considered that appropriate support had been offered to A.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We reviewed the relevant case records and the council’s child protection procedures. We found that the council failed to meet their obligations and take the appropriate action in response to the disclosures made by A. We found that there was sufficient concern about A’s ability to maintain their wellbeing and that social work should have instigated their child protection procedures. We also found that there was insufficient recording within the case records of a clear plan and rationale to explain decision making. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to meet their obligations and correctly apply their child protection procedures in response to the disclosure made by A. 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:

• Case records should include details of discussions held with relevant persons, rationale for any decision making, and evidence of risk assessments, where appropriate.
• Staff should be familiar with the requirements of the council’s child protection procedures and have a clear understanding of when an Inter-agency Referral Discussion should be held.

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 on behalf of their relative (A) and A’s child (B) about the health and social care partnership, of which the counil administered the complaint investigation. B was removed from A’s care. Following a short period of kinship care by B’s grandparent, they were placed with foster carers. C and their partner applied to be B’s kinship carers as soon as B was taken into care. However, they were not made B’s kinship carers until several years later.

C complained that the partnership had unreasonably delayed in assessing their kinship care application. C also complained that there had been failures to facilitate B’s contact with their family, to address concerns about B’s foster carers, to provide them with support following B’s kinship care placement and to provide specified information. The partnership accepted that there had been delay in assessing B’s kinship care and identified learning from this. They did not identify any other service failures.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that there had been a failure to progress the kinship care placement timeously and to take reasonable steps to facilitate B’s family contacts. We also found that there had been a failure to provide specified information. We upheld these complaints. However, we found that there had not been a failure to address concerns about B’s foster carers or to provide C with support following B’s kinship care placement. We did not uphold these complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and their family for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at http://www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.
• Provide C with an explanation on why there had been undue delays in completing B’s kinship care assessment and/or information about the findings/recommendations and actions taken from the CSWO review.

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 advice received and actions taken by trading standards in relation to concerns that they had reported about a builder who had undertaken work for two of their relatives. C said that the council did not provide them with adequate information regarding the steps they could take to establish if they had cause to take further action against the builder, and the timescale in which this was required to be done.

We found that the council had reasonably explained the steps taken in reviewing C's complaint. Whilst we recognised that no information had been given in relation to issues which were time barred, we considered it could not be known until completion of the assessment which matters could be progressed. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

C complained that the council suggested they obtain an independent report of the work completed at personal cost to them. We found that C had sought advice from other sources, and we considered their decision to commission the report had been informed by their wider research and not just on the advice given by trading standards. We also did not find any evidence to support that C had been told that an independent report would be required before their case could be taken to the procurator fiscal. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

C also complained that the council provided them with an inconsistent and inadequate response to their complaints. We found that the response was in keeping with the information shared with C by trading standards. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.