Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council were refusing to clear his neighbour's guttering which, he said, was having an impact on the effectiveness of his guttering. He also complained that the council refused to replace the garden fence. The council had initially agreed to do both but, as Mr C's neighbour turned out to be an owner-occupier, they said they would not carry out the work without an agreement that the neighbour would contribute to the costs.

Mr C was unhappy with this view; however, having reviewed the council's procedures, we were satisfied that they were acting in accordance with their responsibilities. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C applied to the park authority for a repair grant; it was initially refused, but later an offer of funding was made. However, the park authority withdrew the offer of funding. Mrs C complained about this, and that the park authority would not change information they gave to applicants.

The park authority's conditions of grant stated that building work must not start before a signed copy of a grant offer has been received by the park authority, and that the park authority reserved the right to withhold the grant if any conditions were not complied with. As Mrs C's building work started before she was offered the grant, the park authority withdrew the offer. We found that while the timing of this was unfortunate from Mrs C's perspective, that did not invalidate the conditions of the grant.

The park authority explained that the circumstances in which funding became available to Mrs C were unusual, and they explained the importance of not raising applicants expectations falsely; we found these explanations were reasonable. In addition, the park authority said that, in future, they would consider Mrs C's point about the wording of their documentation where possible. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C and his then partner (Ms D) attended a multi-agency meeting at a school in the council's area regarding their foster son. Mr C was unhappy about the way he was spoken to at the meeting by one of the school's staff. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to reasonably investigate his complaint about the way in which he was spoken to at the meeting in line with their complaints procedure.

Mr C's concerns included that the council's investigating officer should have interviewed all four of the meeting attendees to ascertain the truth and that the council's complaints procedure available to him online was out of date. He also said that the council failed to signpost him to us and had to be pressed to confirm that their complaints procedure had been completed.

We considered that it was for the council's investigating officer to determine what evidence she needed in order to make a decision on Mr C's complaint. There was no requirement in the council's complaints procedure for her to have interviewed all persons present at the meeting. However, it would have been helpful if the council had explained to Mr C why they considered that the social worker at the meeting could be a corroborating witness for the member of the school's staff, but that Ms D could not be considered a corroborating witness for his version of events.

The council acknowledged that the complaints procedure available online at that time was out of date. The evidence showed that the investigating officer failed to inform Mr C that her response was the final stage of the council's complaints procedure and the response did not refer him to us. This resulted in several months of unnecessary communications between Mr C and the council on his complaint. We were also concerned that the council failed to make and retain notes of key events in the handling of Mr C's complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that, in future, records of key events during the investigation of complaints are made and retained; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's communication with her over a series of suspensions to her housing benefit.

We found that the council had communicated clearly with Miss C about the reasons for the suspensions and that she had been told what further information was required.

Although during our investigation we found that Miss C expected the council to reply to her emails unreasonably quickly, we did find administrative failings on the council's part, including sending an important email to the wrong address, not finding an attachment to one of Miss C's emails, and advising Miss C that a notice had been sent when it had not. They also failed to reply to two separate emails sent by Miss C. We therefore upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the handling of this case to establish the cause of administrative errors, and identify what steps might be taken to avoid recurrence. The council should then share learning from the review with relevant staff members.

Summary

Mr C said that there was a long-standing history of complaints of low-level noise from an industrial estate close to his home but that the council failed to properly investigate these. He also said that when owners of the site applied for planning permission in 2014, a report presented to the planning committee failed to accurately report the noise issues.

We investigated the complaint and also took independent planning advice. We found that from December 2011, the council had issued noise abatement notices in respect of the site but that the owners had failed to comply. After Mr C complained in 2012, the council visited the premises concerned and witnessed a number of noise issues about which they issued a further abatement notice. The owners were sent written warnings and advised of the penalties of non-compliance. No further complaints were received in 2012. Thereafter, the owners applied for planning permission and there was no doubt that the relevant committee report contained erroneous information. However, this was corrected orally at the planning committee meeting to discuss the application. Notwithstanding the error, we further found that noise was not a material consideration when determining the application. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about care provided to her father (Mr A) by the council on a specific day, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We looked at information provided by Miss C and the council about what happened on the day. Both accounts agreed there was an incident with Mr A, but they did not agree about the reason for it. There was no conclusive evidence of the reason for the incident, which could have helped to prove whether the care provided was adequate in the circumstances. In the absence of this evidence, or any independent evidence of what actually happened, we could not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, although we did not uphold the complaint, we had concerns about specific actions of the staff member involved, and we made recommendations to address these concerns.

The council's responses to Miss C's complaint focused on the days before and after the day she complained about. The council told us this was to assess whether what happened on the specific day could have been predicted, or if the care provided could have had an effect on Mr A. The council should have explained this to Miss C.

It appears that no action was taken when Miss C first reported her complaint to the council, and there were delays when they did deal with her complaint. We found the council did not, as they should have, interrogate evidence provided by their staff thoroughly, in order to resolve a lack of clarity in the evidence given by staff. Our main concern was that the council failed to tell Miss C that she had the right to refer her complaint to a social work complaints review committee, which meant she was denied the opportunity to have her complaint heard fully through the correct process. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• discuss the timing of a phone call with the staff member, to ensure that in future cases they prioritise the patient they are with;
• ensure that points for improvement arising from a discussion between a manager and Miss C's parents are fed back to the staff member, so this general approach can be applied in future;
• ensure that home care staff and management know how to deal with complaints about their service, and how to signpost them to the correct formal process when necessary;
• feed back to staff involved in this complaint the need for them to interrogate evidence thoroughly; and
• ensure that where they handle complaints through the social work complaints process, complainants are always signposted to the complaints review committee.

Summary

Mrs C and her husband decided to defer their child, who has a February birthday, starting Primary One. They wanted their child to spend a further year at nursery. Mrs C said that in terms of the Scottish Government statutory guidance, The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, children born in January or February have the right to have the deferred year funded by a local authority.

Mrs C and her husband secured a place for their child at a partnership nursery school within the council area and applied for funding. The council initially refused the application because in terms of their early years admissions policy deferred funding was only provided for the nursery the child had attended in their pre-school year. In the case of this child, the nursery was in another local authority where the family resided. The council then wrote to Mrs C stating they would fund her child's place but shortly thereafter withdrew their funding offer. The council said the letter offering to fund the child's place had been sent as a result of human error and because their database had not been updated.

Mrs C complained to us about the council's handling of her application. In terms of the statutory guidance, we were satisfied that the council were entitled to set their own local admissions policy and at the time Mrs C made her application, her child did not meet the criteria for funding. Nevertheless, we accepted that the failings in the handling of Mrs C's application had left her in a difficult situation and had caused her concern and distress. For this reason, we upheld the complaint. We also made a recommendation to the council in relation to their computer system in respect of funding applications.

The council subsequently reviewed their admissions policy and agreed to fund the child's deferred year place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence of the process review and adjustments made to their computer system in respect of funding applications.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures in dealing with his reports of anti-social behaviour about two of his neighbours, who were council tenants. Mr C said that his health had suffered considerably due to the actions of his neighbours and the council's failure to deal with the matter appropriately.

During our investigation, we looked at whether, in their handling of Mr C's complaints about his neighbours, the council had followed their anti-social behaviour procedure (ASB procedure) and the provisions set out in their Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement (SSTA). We found that the council had dealt with most of Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours in accordance with the provisions of the SSTA and their ASB procedure.

However, the records showed that having begun action under the SSTA against one of Mr C's neighbours, in relation to a pet being unsupervised in Mr C's garden and common areas, there was no evidence that the council ensured the required action was taken. This was despite Mr C continuing to report problems with his neighbours, providing them with further evidence and telling the council that they were failing to resolve his complaints.

We considered that the council's written responses to Mr C's letters were unreasonably brief and failed to fully explain the actions taken by them. The council's responses failed to advise Mr C that some of the matters raised by him were not for the council, or to whom the issues should be reported. This lack of detail was also apparent in the council's written responses to Mr C's formal letters of complaint to them about their handling of the situation. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that any future complaints from Mr C are dealt with in line with their ASB procedure and SSTA, whilst taking full account of the previous formal action taken by the council;
• ensure that, in future, they provide complainants with full written responses to written reports and formal complaints about anti-social behaviour, with signposting where appropriate; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C had previously complained to us that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who had acted for a member of his family before their death (see complaint 201300636). We upheld this complaint and recommended that council take steps to ensure that the issues he had raised were investigated appropriately. The council carried out a further investigation, but Mr C was unhappy with this and made a further complaint to the council. He referred this complaint to us after receiving the council's response.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a social work adviser. We found that although there were some minor failings in the council's investigation, overall, the investigation was proportionate and was carried out in line with the relevant code of practice. We said that we would bring the minor failings to the board's attention, but we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to hold a complaints review committee (CRC) in relation to the complaint. Although the council had initially told Mr C that they would make arrangements to comply with his request, they then told him that a CRC could not be held, as the issue he was complaining about was not one that could be dealt with by a CRC. We were critical that the council's initial letter raised Mr C's expectations that a CRC would be held. We were also critical of the council's delay in responding to his request for a CRC. However, we found that it had been reasonable for the council not to hold a CRC and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained that the council did not take reasonable steps to address water ingress in her home. She said despite numerous visits and investigations by the council's staff, they had not been able to identify the source of the water ingress and they had failed to carry out specific agreed work to identify the source of the problem.

We were satisfied that the council accepted that water ingress was a problem in Ms C's home. The evidence showed that their staff and contractors attended Ms C's home on numerous occasions, conducted a variety of tests and carried out repair work in good faith. When this work proved to be unsuccessful, they sought the opinion of independent specialists and acted upon their recommendations. The overall picture was of the council attempting to identify the cause of the water ingress and when one cause was ruled out, or a remedy did not work, they conducted further investigations and sought to identify other potential causes. We did not find this approach unreasonable.

The council had a clear obligation to ensure that Ms C was housed in a property that was wind and watertight. If they were unable to ensure that Ms C's current property met the required standard, they were obliged to arrange for temporary accommodation while the required work was completed and the basic standard restored. We accepted that the council did offer to provide Ms C with temporary accommodation, but that she chose to remain in her home.

We were, therefore, satisfied that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the water ingress problems in Ms C's home and offered Ms C temporary accommodation in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement.