Local Government

Summary

C submitted a housing application to the council and complained about how this was handled. C complained that the council unreasonably suspended their application while investigating their personal circumstances, that they ignored their medical conditions, and that they did not respond to C’s concerns appropriately. The council said they considered C’s application was handled appropriately and they noted that C has since accepted an offer of permanent housing.

We found that, while C did record their medical conditions on the housing application, they did not indicate that they required any specific adaptations, therefore the council handled the application appropriately. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. While we considered the council handled C’s application appropriately overall, and they gave appropriate advice in response to C’s queries, we did conclude that the council’s housing allocations policy was not clear about the circumstances that an application will be suspended. As such, we upheld the second part of C's complaint and asked the council to review their policy to ensure it is clear and transparent with regard to when housing applications will/will not be suspended.

Recommendations

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

• Housing applicants should be informed promptly if/when their housing applications have been suspended, in accordance with the council’s policy.
• The council’s policy should be clear on the circumstances where a housing application will or will not be suspended.

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

Prior to 2015, C’s grandchild was placed in their care by social work. C was granted a Section 11 Residence Order by a court (also known as a Kinship Care Order, conveying parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child). The case was then closed to social work in mid-2015.

C complained that the council did not contact them directly to advise of the changes to the kinship care legislation in October 2015. C stated that they found out that the law had changed through word-of-mouth in September 2019. C also complained that when they applied for a kinship care allowance this was only backdated to the date of their application and not to October 2015.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the legislation and guidance did not require the council to directly contact all closed cases where a section 11 order was in place to notify them of the changes. The legislation requires local authorities to publish certain information about kinship care assistance and the council provided evidence that they had done this. We also found that there was no indication in the legislation and guidance that C’s particular circumstances entitled them to a backdated allowance to October 2015.

We did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to reasonably maintain and repair their property. We found that there had been delays in carrying out repairs to C’s heating system and windows and that the level of communication about the delays was unreasonable. We also found that C was left without central heating for a period. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

C also complained that the council failed to maintain an agreed reasonable adjustment that they would not be contacted or visited in the morning. C said that despite complaining to the council about breaches to the agreement, the problem continued. We found that the limited capacity of the council’s systems to record, effectively communicate and implement an agreed adjustment was a significant factor in the council’s failure to provide C with a service in line with the agreed adjustment. Although comments in the council’s complaint files indicated that officers were aware of these issues, it was unclear to what extent, if any, steps were taken to escalate or resolve the issues with the systems. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the delays in carrying out the repair works and the poor communication in connection with this, and the repeated failure to adhere to the agreed service adjustment. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Once C’s central heating system had been replaced, consider a claim from C for reimbursement of the extra expense they incurred due to the faulty boiler operation.
• Provide C with a schedule for the repair work and temporary rehousing arrangements.

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

• The council should have effective systems in place to ensure that the housing services provided can be adjusted in line with the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled customers.
• Where the council have informed a tenant they will carry out repair work, officers should keep the tenant updated about any delays. Tenants must have a satisfactory provision for heating their property.

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 held Power of Attorney (POA, a legal document appointing someone to act or make decisions for another person) for their parent (A) who moved to a care home. Due to their level of capital, it was determined that A would be self-funding their accommodation. C requested a reassessment for funding towards care home fees as A’s savings had reduced to the required threshold.

C provided the evidence required to show A’s income and expenditure to social work and was informed that A had been overspending on items other than care costs. The council determined that there had been deprivation of capital (where someone has spent or otherwise reduced their capital at least in part to avoid paying that money towards care home fees). This meant they would not contribute towards A’s care costs. By the time C was informed of this, A’s finances reduced significantly and had accrued debt.

C complained to us that the council’s view that A had deprived themselves of capital was unreasonable and also that the council had failed to provide adequate information about reasonable spending and deprivation of capital.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified social worker. On reviewing the council’s records, we considered a reasonable approach had been taken to the financial assessment and that the conclusion reached was reasonable, as there was clear evidence that A’s spending had not been consistent with their spending in previous years. We also considered that reasonable information had been provided about deprivation of capital and made clear that it was the responsibility of a POA to understand A’s financial obligations and that the council did not have responsibility to provide financial advice.

As such, we did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

C’s sibling (A) was being treated in hospital after being diagnosed with a brain tumour. C complained about social work involvement in planning for A’s discharge from hospital. C believed the home environment was unsafe for A, and thought the council should have made alternative arrangements for A’s accommodation on discharge. C also complained about the communication with C and C’s sibling (B) regarding discharge arrangements for A. C was dissatisfied with the council’s complaint response, and brought their complaint to us.

The council said that they had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation. They noted A consistently expressed a wish to be discharged home to their family, and the council undertook a number of tasks to improve the home condition prior to A’s discharge.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council had provided an appropriate care and support plan for A. We noted C’s concerns about A’s home environment, but considered that the council had worked to minimise the risks to A of returning home. We considered that the council had met their obligations in respect of A and we, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

With regard to the complaint about communication, the council acknowledged some of their communication with the family could have been better, and apologised for this. We noted that although C said they had Power of Attorney (a legal document appointing someone to act or make decisions for another person), this had not been registered with the Office of the Public Guardian and therefore gave them no authority to act on behalf of A. Although C and B had no legal authority to be involved in decision-making regarding A, we noted that the council had worked to involve them. We recognised this was a complex and difficult situation but we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained to the council but did not receive a response until two years later.

We found that the council failed to acknowledge the complaint within the timeline as set out by the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. The council failed to update C while they were waiting for the council’s response, and the length of time it took for the council to provide a response was excessive and unreasonable.

As such, we upheld this complaint. Due to the learning and actions taken by the council after they issued their response we did not make recommendations as appropriate action had already been taken.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their child (A). A, who has additional support needs, transferred to a new school. C complained about one of A’s National 5 grades, unhappy at the level of the award submitted by the school to the Scottish Qualifications Agency. C believed the decision on the level of award was made using incomplete or inaccurate information. C was also concerned about how the school shared information with staff concerning the additional support needs for A. C was also unhappy at the level of communication received from the school in relation to A.

C complained to the council but was unhappy at their response and brought their complaint to this office. The council said that A’s needs were communicated to all staff with an enhanced provision of support in place, that the school regularly communicated with C including highlighting a risk of a non-award in a National 5 subject and that there was a range of evidence used by staff in conjunction with moderation of standards against the National 5 assessment criteria to make a professional judgement.

We found that the school shared information about A’s health and support needs with staff and that there was reasonable proactive communication between the school and C. We found no evidence that A’s projected National 5 grade was based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the failure by the council to carry out a kinship care assessment. This failure meant A had not been provided with interim payments whilst a child (B) resided with them. B was the subject of a compulsory supervision order (CSO), which required them to live at A's property. The council said they considered the arrangement to be a private one between A and B's family and they did not believe a CSO was necessary or appropriate. The council added that B no longer resided with A.

Following our enquiries, the council offered to make a payment to A for the period between the making of the CSO and B moving out. C confirmed this was acceptable to A and would resolve the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their client (A) that the council had unreasonably failed to handle a request for kinship care assistance. A assumed care of their grandchildren and applied for and was granted a residence order. A one-off payment along with weekly payments were paid by the council. While a kinship assessment was commenced, it was approximately three years later before A was told that they were not an approved kinship carer and that the weekly payments would be stopped.

C complained to the council that the decision to stop the weekly payments was unreasonable and that A had been treated poorly by the council. In addition, C complained that the kinship assessment had restarted three times with three different social workers which had made this a distressing process for A. Also, the grandchildren were incorrectly not being recognised as being ‘at risk of becoming looked after’.

We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work and children and family services. We found that there were significant delays in concluding the kinship assessment which had not adhered to the timescales set out in the Guidance on the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations and the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. We also found that the outcome had not been communicated to A as per this guidance. While it is for the council to determine whether or not a child is at risk of becoming looked after, we accepted the advice we received that, in this case, the council had failed to evidence that they carried out a sufficient level of assessment to conclude whether or not A’s grandchildren were at risk of becoming ‘looked after’. In addition, we found that the council had failed to carry out an in-depth assessment of the family’s circumstances, particularly the six months before the residence order was granted, under the terms of the National Guidance. Finally, we found that the council’s communication with A was unreasonable.

For the reasons detailed above, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for the failings identified by the investigation. 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:

• The council should reconsider the situation at the time it was first presented to them, with respect to whether the children were at risk of being accommodated (as outlined by Section 71 (5) (a) of the Children and Young People (Scotland Act 2014) given there was no legislative security in place for them against a father who was alleged to be a risk to the children and who had parental rights and responsibilities that A did not have. Depending on the outcome of the above reconsideration the council should reassess whether there is a requirement to now carry out a kinship assessment. A should be notified of the outcome. The council should consider revisiting the robustness of assessment and risk assessment and how this is quality assured to ensure that the right questions are being asked at the outset and that ongoing assessments are addressing the issues such as those highlighted by the Kinship Panel.

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 involvement with their child (A). A had a range of conditions that affected their development and behaviour. A was placed in residential care and was made subject to a legal order via the children's hearing system.

A was transitioning out of children's services and into adult services. C raised a number of concerns with the council about the support provided by the council when arranging A's transition. Whilst the council upheld aspects of C's complaint, C remained dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to us.

C felt that some aspects of the council's response were unclear, that they had not taken responsibility for what had gone wrong, and that they misunderstood some of the family's concerns.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council could have done more to facilitate clear communication with C and to involve C in A's care planning and assessments. We also found that the council unreasonably excluded C from certain aspects of the decision-making process for A. We upheld all of C's complaints.

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:

• Social work staff should allow enough time to carry out the appropriate planning and assessment work, consider if a capacity assessment should be sought at an early stage, and take a holistic view of the needs of the young person and their wider support networks.
• Social work staff should take into account the young person's wishes about their family's involvement in the decision-making process. Social work staff should meet with families to discuss and address any issues prior to children's hearing/review meetings and try to agree a course of action to present to the Children's Panel/review officer.
• Social work staff should endeavour to use emails to contact clients/their families, when that is their preference, as it is more effective and efficient than corresponding by post.
• Unless there is good reason not to, social work staff should arrange a face-to-face meeting or a phone call to discuss sensitive matters, rather than communicating the information in writing.

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.