Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained about the way the council investigated a complaint about the conduct and attitude of an officer at an appeal hearing. Ms C said the officer unreasonably and unfairly undermined her case and was rude and antagonising.

We found the council had appointed a suitable investigating officer and had given attendees, including independent people, the opportunity to contribute their evidence. Ms C was unhappy that the council had not spoken to her or a friend who accompanied her to the hearing. We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision for the council, and that the details of her dissatisfaction were already on record. We were satisfied the council were entitled to give particular weight to the evidence of independent people. We found the complaint had been investigated to the standard and extent we would expect. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that before a class reorganisation, the head teacher of her daughter (Miss A)'s school failed to consult in a reasonable way with Mrs C. Mrs C said that the need to consult was important because Miss A had previously been bullied and had health issues. Mrs C said that when she complained about this to the council, the council failed to handle her complaint reasonably.

We investigated the complaint and found that the council had followed their stated policy. The head teacher informed parents of the forthcoming changes as soon as possible and meetings were held with them. While Mrs C was concerned about her daughter's health, there was no evidence that she had raised this or bullying issues with the school. Once the council became aware of these issues, they looked into them. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

However, the council's response to Mrs C's complaint was confused and took too long. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make a formal apology for their delay; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of adhering to the stated complaints process.

Summary

Miss C complained that she was excluded from South Lanarkshire Leisure and Culture (SLLC)'s library premises and placed on their violent marker system following a verbal exchange with staff. She complained that her exclusion was unreasonable. Our investigation focused on whether the relevant process and procedures were followed in taking the decision to exclude Miss C.

We noted that SLLC's management rules and founding legislation states that an exclusion order can be issued where someone has persistently contravened management rules and is considered likely to do so again. However, SLLC confirmed that their decision to issue the exclusion order in Miss C's case was based on a single contravention. We also noted that Miss C should have been formally informed of her right to make representations against the exclusion and this did not happen. In addition, we noted that a phone call and a meeting between senior staff and Miss C, which were cited by SLLC as features of the exclusion process, were not documented.

While we identified that Miss C was notified in writing of her placement on the violent marker system, SLLC advised us that this letter was sent in error and that the template had since been removed. We therefore did not consider that they had provision in place to meet their future obligations in this regard. However, we noted that they were still in the process of reviewing their procedures. We considered that it was appropriate for this review to be completed, taking account of the failings our investigation identified, and that it would be beneficial for the relationship between the exclusion and violent marker procedures to be clarified. We noted that Miss C had subsequently been informed that her exclusion had been lifted following review, but she did not receive any confirmation of the outcome of a review of her position as it relates to the violent marker system. In light of the identified failings, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SLLC:

• complete a review of their management rules and violent marker procedure (and the relationship between the two) and inform this office of the steps taken to ensure future compliance with their statutory and procedural obligations;
• remind staff of the importance of documenting the content of meetings and phone calls, particularly where they will be relied upon to support future actions;
• apologise to Miss C for their failure to follow the appropriate procedure when taking action to exclude her from using their facilities; and
• write to Miss C to confirm the position as it relates to information held about her on their violent marker system.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mr A. Mr A had approached the council for assistance in caring for his mother. Mr A was dissatisfied with the way in which his requests were handled by the council. He complained to the council and this was handled through the social work complaints procedure. As Mr A's complaint had been heard by a Complaints Review Committee (CRC), we were limited to considering complaints about the way in which his complaint had been handled. Mr C said that Mr A's complaint had been unreasonably put on hold because Mr A had said he was seeking compensation, that the council had failed to consider and respond to Mr A's comments on the draft report and that it was unreasonable that the council's legal representative stayed with the CRC panel when they broke up for recess.

Following investigations, we concluded that the statutory social work complaints procedure and associated guidance indicated that the council had to receive a clear indication that the subject of the complaint was actively being pursued by legal action before a complaint could be suspended, rather than there being a verbal expression of intention. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also had concerns that the council's own complaints procedure did not reflect the wording of the statutory social work complaints process and recommended that the council review this.

In relation to Mr C's concerns that the council had not adequately considered and responded to Mr A's comments on the draft report, we could see no indication that a full response to the comments was required or that Mr A had been given an indication that this would be given. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. We were concerned that by being invited for comments, this had potentially raised Mr A's expectations that a detailed response would be given and that the matter would be investigated further.

In relation to Mr C's concerns that the council's legal representative stayed with the CRC panel when they broke up for recess, we established that the person in attendance was acting as legal adviser to the CRC and, as a matter of standard practice, they normally remain in the room. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff involved in handling social work complaints of the circumstances in which complaints can be suspended and that if there is any uncertainly regarding whether the complainant is taking legal action against the council, this should be confirmed with them, preferably in writing;
• review the Social Work Resources Complaints Procedure with a view to ensuring that the wording reflects the contents of the directions and guidance on this point; and
• provided the council still wish allow to complainants the opportunity to comment on CRC recommendations, add to the relevant template letter that comments will only be passed to the CRC for consideration and will not be individually responded to.

Summary

Ms C removed her child from school and requested a transfer to a new school as she was concerned about the impact of the school environment on her child's wellbeing. The school raised concerns about her child's absence and scheduled a meeting to discuss this. Ms C subsequently found out that the school nurse had contacted her child's GP to request information just before this meeting and a report had been faxed to the school. Ms C complained that the head teacher inappropriately made this request. In particular, the GP records stated the requested information was required for an inter-agency meeting with child protection concerns involved, when the meeting did not involve other agencies and there were no child protection concerns.

The council said the request was made by the school nurse who only asked the GP practice if someone could call the school to discuss if there was anything in the child's medical history relevant to concerns about their ongoing wellbeing and absence from school. The council said there were no child protection concerns but it was not possible to seek this information from Ms C as she refused to have any contact with them. However, when we asked for evidence of the lack of communication, the council acknowledged that in fact Ms C did have contact with both the school and council officers during this period.

After investigating these issues and reviewing the records from the school and GP we found that although it was clear that inaccurate information was received by the GP about child protection concerns, it was not clear that this was due to the actions of the head teacher and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we were critical that the council did not make any record of the request for information and did not inform Ms C or the child about this. We also found failings with the council's complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that decisions to seek sensitive information about a pupil are adequately recorded and the pupil and/or parents are consulted (unless there is a clear recorded reason for not doing so);
• apologise to Ms C and her child for the failings identified;
• remind staff of the definition of a complaint in their complaints handling procedure;
• review their complaints handling tools to ensure staff are prompted to identify relevant evidence when planning an investigation; and
• audit a sample of recent correspondence to ensure that correspondence meeting the definition of a complaint is being handled under the correct process.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of complaints about the council's handling of a planning application for a house on a plot neighbouring her own. She felt that the council failed to take account of her objections to the application, failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the development, recorded inaccurate site boundaries and incorrectly said in the planning report that there were no trees on site.

We reviewed the evidence and found that the council had taken into account Ms C's objections when assessing the application. They noted the boundary dispute and correctly advised that this was a private legal matter. In addition they imposed planning conditions in order to protect Ms C's amenity.

Although the planning officer said that the site had been cleared and Ms C said that one tree remained on the site, we took the view that the planning officer's description of the site was reasonable. In our view it was appropriate for the planning officer to highlight the site clearance to the council's bio-diversity officer for assessment. We were satisfied that the planning report was appropriate and we considered that the council had given reasonable consideration to the impact of the development on the environment.

Summary

Mrs C brought a complaint on behalf of Mrs A, who lives in a block of accommodation. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew their offer of grant funding towards works required to bring Mrs A's house up to a reasonable standard. She also complained that the council failed to provide Mrs A with assistance in seeking agreement from the other property owners in the block to arrange for the works to be carried out.

We found that the block in which Mrs A's home was included was identified as being sub-standard. Initially the council's efforts were directed towards assisting owners of the properties concerned to arrange for the works to be completed to bring the properties up to a habitable standard. To assist with this, the council offered grants towards the costs of the works. However, as the owners did not agree to carry out the works themselves, the council were required, using their powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, to intervene and take responsibility for arranging for the works to be completed. As they were required to carry out the works, they withdrew their offer of grant funding.

We found that the council had provided advice and assistance to owners in their efforts to progress the improvement works. It was noted, however, that Mrs A had not requested additional support. We noted that the decision to withdraw grant funding where owners do not agree to take forward the improvement works themselves was in line with the council's scheme of assistance. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a statutory notice served for roof works affecting a property owned by him. He complained that he had not received a notice served notifying owners that the works would be executed. He also complained that the council had failed to provide a 20-year guarantee on materials and labour for works to a flat roof on the building which had been agreed before works commenced.

On investigation, the council provided copies of all notices served in connection with the works and we found no evidence that the council had failed to properly serve any notice. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

However, it was clear from their correspondence with owners that a guarantee was agreed but never provided. We found that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to secure the guarantee from the contractor on completion of works. As such, we upheld this complaint. Following our enquiry the council were able to secure the guarantee from the contractor and provided copies of this to all affected owners.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C raised a complaint with the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) regarding home care. As the complaint was regarding social work, it was progressed through the statutory social work complaints procedure and a complaints review committee (CRC) was held. Mr C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that while there had been a delay in the CRC being held, it was not unreasonable. We concluded that there was no evidence of bias. We were satisfied that the council had handled the request for the CRC to be recorded in a reasonable way. We were satisfied with the council's explanation regarding the effect of the power of attorney on the complaint and that the CRC had accepted Mr C was the power of attorney. Mr C had decided not to continue with the CRC and therefore they were not given the opportunity to consider the complaint itself at the meeting. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

We did have concerns that the council had subsequently written to Mr C stating that they would not reschedule the CRC and referred him to the SPSO as this meant that the complaint that had been raised was not actually considered at CRC stage, which is a complainant's right under the statutory social work complaints procedure. We also had concerns that the council continued to correspond with Mr C following the referral to the SPSO after the CRC and treated his correspondence as a new complaint. We therefore made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer Mr C a final option to have this complaint considered by a CRC on the basis of the written submissions he and the council had previously made to the CRC; and
• remind staff that complaints about complaints handling should not normally be treated as a new complaint and that if appropriate, complainants should be referred to the SPSO.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate within a reasonable timescale a complaint about his neighbour conducting a business from their home. He also complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaints. He said that the council's decision that there had been no breach of planning control had been made without all the facts required to make an evidence-based decision.

We took independent planning advice which stated that the council could exercise its discretion when deciding whether a breach of planning control had occurred. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the council to have decided how much weight to give to information submitted by Mr C, as opposed to the evidence gathered by its own offices. We found the council had conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation and whilst there had been delays, these had been due to engagement with government agencies over which the council had no control. We also found the council had reached a reasonable decision based on the evidence available to it.

We found that although the council had responded to Mr C's complaints, it had not done so in a way that made it clear that the response was part of the complaints process, rather than the wider correspondence Mr C was having with the council. The council had recognised this when reviewing their investigation and taken action to address this failure.