Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not handled his correspondence and complaints reasonably. He was unhappy that correspondence he had sent had not been answered, that he had not been able to speak with the complaints handler when he called and that there were inaccuracies in the final response to his complaint.

Following careful consideration of the documentation, the council appeared to have only received one letter. There was no acknowledgement or response sent to Mr C. Mr C then contacted the council on a number of occasions to express his dissatisfaction at not receiving a response. The council did not identify these contacts as a complaint. It was only when Mr C approached us that the council logged a complaint - and used a phone note dated two months earlier as the complaint from Mr C, which led to inaccuracies when referring to timescales in the council's final response. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint that his complaint had not been handled reasonably by the council. We recommended that they apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation and remind housing staff of the definition of a complaint and the importance of identifying, logging and responding to complaints and keeping complainants updated as set out in the council's complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind housing department staff (including call handlers) of the definition of a complaint and the importance of identifying, logging and responding to complaints and keeping complainants updated as set out within their complaints procedure.

Summary

As Mrs C lived within a two-mile radius of her child's secondary school, her child was not entitled to free transport to school. Although she accepted this, she considered that the route her child had to walk was not safe because of the lack of lighting, the low priority the path had for gritting in the winter, and the volume of traffic on a fast road. She said that the council had not paid appropriate heed to guidance from the Scottish Government. When she complained to the council about the assessment of the walking route, she did not consider their response adequately addressed her complaints and the issues she raised.

We found that the council had applied an assessment methodology which was developed around English legislation, which did not consider street lighting to be significant. We also reviewed the Scottish Government guidance on this issue, and found that it allowed for significant flexibility in how councils consider various aspects of road safety. We therefore considered that it was reasonable for the council to use the assessment methodology as they did, and this was in line with the exercising of their professional judgement, and so we did not uphold this complaint. We also noted that neither set of guidance mentioned the need to take account of gritting of pavements in winter weather. However, we noted the lack of any internal policy at the time of the assessment in question. The council assured us they had since adopted a policy, but did not provide a copy.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council had not provided clear responses to the concerns which Mrs C raised. We therefore upheld this complaint. We also noted that the officer who investigated the complaint was the same one involved in earlier correspondence on this issue, which raised concerns about the independence of their investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the findings of this complaint to the relevant complaints handling staff; and
• apologise to Mrs C for not responding to her complaints in line with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of matters relating to his granddaughter (Miss A). His son (Mr A) had lost custody of his daughter (Miss A) following separation from his wife (Ms D). Whilst pursuing access to Miss A through the social work department, Mr A and Mr C raised a number of concerns about how their complaints were handled, the accuracy of information in reports, and allegations made about Mr A which they did not consider to be accurate. They also complained that Mr A's application for housing was not handled fairly.

We were satisfied that Mr C and Mr A's complaints were handled appropriately through the social work complaints procedure. Those issues that could not be considered were directed towards other more suitable organisations. We were also satisfied that Mr A's housing application was fairly handled.

We found that the council consistently acted with Miss A's interests in mind and found nothing that would question the validity of decisions made regarding her welfare. That said, we were critical of the council for failing to clearly explain the role of a person appointed to support Ms D, and for failing to properly document their consideration of counter-allegations that Mr A had made against Ms D.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the way that they explain the role of support workers and the level of involvement that they could have in such cases;
• apologise to Mr A for the issues highlighted in our decision; and
• review the extent to which the support worker may have been providing a service to Miss A as well as Ms D and provide details on the outcome of their review to Mr A.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her social work complaint. We found that the council did not follow their own procedures correctly. The council did not tell Mrs C that she could refer her complaint to an independent panel called a complaints review committee (CRC). Mrs C asked for a CRC anyway and the council convened a CRC with an independent chair and two elected councillors, according to the rules.

Mrs C told us there were two specific documents related to the complaint that she wanted CRC members to see. She had asked for them to be included on the agenda but they were not. We found there was evidence of an internal discussion about sharing these two documents, which contained third party information. It was unclear what the outcome of that discussion was. We found no evidence that the council had asked permission from the third parties involved, or that they had told Mrs C the two documents could not be shared, as should have happened. Although we found the council's communication was poor regarding the two documents, we were satisfied that the CRC was able to reach a decision on each of Mrs C's complaints without seeing the documents.

The CRC recommended that the council apologise to Mrs C. This did not happen for many months, until we contacted the council. The council told us that the person responsible no longer worked there and that the outstanding recommendation was not picked up by anybody else. They also issued an apology to Mrs C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer an apology for the communication failures we identified in relation to the handling of Mrs C's complaint; and
• review internal procedures to ensure, in relation to CRCs, that proper records are kept, that communication with complainants is robust, and that there is a system in place for monitoring any outstanding recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the council dealt with bullying at her child's school. Mrs C said that the head teacher had shown a lack of care towards her child, that their ineffective action led to the continued bullying of her child and that the anti-bullying policy was not well advertised. The council did not uphold her complaints about the school's lack of care or advertising of the policy, although they partially upheld the complaint that ineffective action led to continued bullying.

We considered two complaints from Mrs C. These were that reported bullying incidents were not dealt with effectively and that effective measures were not taken to protect her child in line with the anti-bullying policy. We found that the school had taken appropriate steps to investigate the reported bullying incidents and that this action was in line with their anti-bullying policy. There was no evidence that there had been a lack of care in this regard and we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We upheld Mrs C's second complaint regarding the effectiveness of action taken as we found that the council had identified failings and that there were some issues with how reported bullying incidents had been recorded. There was no evidence that the anti-bullying policy was not advertised, but we did consider that it may have been beneficial to have drawn it to the attention of Mrs C when she first reported the bullying of her child.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mrs C with a written apology for the issues identified during their investigation of the effectiveness of action taken by the school;
• update us on the outcome of the recommendations made to the school following the council's investigation and how these have addressed the issues identified;
• consider the potential benefits of drawing the school's policy to the attention of parents reporting bullying incidents; and
• review how the available electronic resources are used to record and track bullying incidents, including those reported by parents or some time after the event itself.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably sent his council tax demands to the incorrect address despite him notifying them of his correct address several times. He also complained that they failed to process his forms for council tax benefit. We found he had contacted the council to request that his address be changed and that the council failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe. We upheld this aspect of his complaint. In terms of his council tax benefit application, we noted the council's records showed that they issued forms to Mr C on a number of occasions but that they had no record of completed forms being returned. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint as we found no evidence to support his statement that these forms were returned. We recommended that the council write to Mr C to apologise for the delay in updating his address.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for not providing his correct address to the assessor timeously.

Summary

Mrs C is a tenant of the council. She said that, for two years, there were water leaks from the flat above. She said this caused damage to her property as well as stress and inconvenience to herself. She complained to us that the council had delayed in completing the necessary works. She said that it took too long to find the cause of the water penetration and that, when she complained to the council, there were delays and confusion.

We found that, while the council responded appropriately to the leaks, there had been a delay of a month before necessary electrical safety checks were made. This complaint was, therefore, upheld. It had taken the council some time to find the cause of the water penetration, as there were a number of separate sources. However, we established that this was due to access problems and was outwith the council's control. When Mrs C made her complaint, however, the council did not deal with it in accordance with their stated procedures. All of Mrs C's complaints about the handling of her complaints were upheld.

We found that the council had apologised and taken action to address Mrs C's complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s decision to request a church bell's chime to be switched off following noise complaints from neighbouring residents. The council’s noise team investigated the complaints as per their duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and they used World Health Organisation guidelines to establish whether the measured noise levels would cause sleep disturbance. As the recorded noise levels from one of the complainants’ properties exceeded the guideline level, the council deemed the noise to be a nuisance. They asked for the chime to be switched off until a longer-term solution could be identified. Mr C noted the historic nature of the church bell. He considered that the council were inappropriately treating it in the same manner as a malfunctioning car alarm or a late night party.

The council explained how they investigated the noise complaints. They assured us that they had adhered to their statutory and procedural responsibilities. They noted that their public safety team were responsible for maintaining the church bell. Therefore, they had assumed that the team was also responsible for taking action to resolve the noise complaints. The chime was switched off via an informal agreement with the public safety team and the council felt that a longer-term solution could be quickly identified and agreed. However, it was then clarified that the role of the public safety team did not extend to this, and the church owners were responsible. The council told us they were committed to working with the owners to help find an appropriate solution, and they provided evidence of their ongoing involvement in this process.

Apart from the confusion over responsibilities, we concluded that the decision to ask for the chime to be switched off was a discretionary one that the council were entitled to take. We were satisfied that they provided evidence to demonstrate the basis upon which they exercised their professional judgement. As we did not see any evidence of administrative failure on the council’s part, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning site next to his home. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to provide the public with relevant information on a planning application for a new building; that they had failed to consider objections to the planning application (related to the excessive height at the rear of the development); and had failed to pursue enforcement action to have the building removed.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We noted the council accepted that they had failed to provide all the relevant information to the public. In particular, the level difference at the rear of the development should have been identified when the application was processed. The council had apologised and taken action. The council also accepted that this information would have helped Mr C to raise concerns about the development height during the application process, instead of raising the matter as an enforcement issue after the application was approved.

We found that the absence of approved external measurements made it impossible for the council to specify what height adjustments should be made for the building to comply with approved plans. However, we accepted that any variation in the height of the building from what was approved was likely to be too marginal to be enforceable. We also found that the ground levels on the application plan were entirely misleading, and should have been corrected by the council to note the likely dominant impact of the development on the garden behind. We found no evidence that the height difference at the rear of the development was fully considered during the application process. We considered that the assessment of the planning application was compromised by the lack of recognition of the extent of the change of ground level.

We accepted that the decision not to take direct enforcement action to remove the building was a discretionary decision for the council. However, we considered there had been a delay in taking enforcement action, which undermined public confidence.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the adviser's comments on the need for an accurate survey plan showing the relationship to adjacent developments and ground levels, and report back to us on any action proposed regarding future planning applications;
• consider whether it would be appropriate in this case to pursue a section 71 discontinuation or alteration order; and
• consider this case and the adviser's comments to see if any further lessons can be learned, and report back to us on any action taken.

Summary

Mr C was informed that his daughter (Miss A) would be allocated to a composite class (where two or more year groups are taught together) the following academic year. She was the only female member of her current class who was to be placed in the composite class. Mr C was concerned about the impact of this decision on Miss A and her learning. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to take into account the Scottish Government 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC) provisions. Mr C was also unhappy about the way the council handled his complaint.

We contacted the Scottish Government who explained that, at present, the GIRFEC provisions were best practice. The council explained that best practice was followed when allocating children to composite classes. They said the relevant council policy makes allowances for headteachers to make decisions on the basis of individual needs. If a headteacher judges that a child's needs will not be met, they can exercise their discretion and move the child to a more appropriate class. We was satisfied that, in Mr C's case, the headteacher gave consideration to the relevant criteria for allocating children to composite classes and made their decision on that basis.

Mr C also complained about the way his complaint had been handled. He said that his complaint was not properly understood or represented and that Miss A's previous teachers were not interviewed. He said that it was not demonstrated how his proposed alternative solution would have compromised the council's policy. Additionally, he said that the GIRFEC provisions were not identified as a consideration in the response to his complaint. Following detailed consideration of all the relevant documents and correspondence, we concluded that the handling of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and did not uphold his complaint to us.