Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. He said Mr A's flat had not been redecorated as promised whilst Mr A was staying in temporary accomodation. Work on his kitchen had not been completed, and a damp problem within the bathroom had not been completely rectified. Mr C also said Mr A felt the investigation into his complaint had been partial and had unfairly discounted his version of events.

Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged that Mr A's kitchen work and bathroom work had not been completed, and we upheld these complaints. The council had apologised and proposed an appropriate solution. Mr A had, however, subsequently moved tenancy and so we made no further recommendations. We found the council's investigation into Mr A's complaint had been conducted in line with their complaints handling policy and that there was insufficient evidence to uphold this complaint against the council.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to properly investigate when she complained to them that she had been knocked off her bicycle by a council employee who opened his van door directly into her path. She complained that the driver did not stop to make sure she was unhurt. She said he said that she should have rung her bell and he then left in his van. She also complained to our office about the significant length of time it had taken the council to respond to her complaint. The council eventually wrote to Miss C to advise that they were unable to trace the van or driver from the details Miss C had provided and could not, therefore, accept any liability for the incident.

Although the issue of liability in an accident like this can only be determined by the courts, we did look into the background of the case in order to establish whether or not the council's investigations into the incident were reasonable, and whether they had dealt with Miss C's complaint appropriately.

We found that the council did conduct an investigation to identify the van and driver involved but, on the basis of the limited information provided by Miss C, they were unable to identify the vehicle or driver. We found their investigations to be reasonable. However, we noted that the council initially failed completely to respond to Miss C's complaint and, when they did contact her, this was through the claims process rather than the complaints process. We noted that the council did not respond to the questions Miss C raised in her complaint even after prompting by our office. It was not until we had begun our investigation that the council finally wrote to Miss C to answer her questions and to provide information about how to complain to our office. As a result of these failings, and the significant delay in responding to her complaint (around 15 months), we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended to the council that they review their procedures, in light of our findings, in order to ensure that complaints are directed to the relevant team for response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the process they follow, in light of the circumstances of this case, when identifying and acknowledging complaints to ensure that in future, complaints such as these are passed to the appropriate service for response in line with their complaints procedure, and let us know when this review is complete.

Summary

Mrs C told us that when she and her son (Mr A) moved onto a caravan site they were told by the site owner it was an all-year-round residential site. They later found out that there was a site licence condition which limited residency to eight months per year. Mrs C and Mr A said that when they went to register to pay council tax, the council should have alerted them to the licence condition. We accepted the council's position, which was that the site licence condition was not of significance in relation to council tax liability. Officers responsible for council tax only had to establish whether the caravan was occupied as Mrs C and Mr A's main or only residence. The council said, and we agreed, that the terms of Mrs C and Mr A's lease or rental agreement was a matter between them and the site owner.

Mrs A and Mr C said a council officer came on site without good reason and discussed their private business within hearing distance of other people. We found that the council officer did not show his identification when he went on site and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. The council had already apologised for this. Mr A refused to speak to the council officer. Mrs C and Mr A said that there was no need for the council's visit as they had already been to the council office to tell the council that they were moving and where they were going to. The council confirmed the visit but said Mrs C and Mr A did not provide a forwarding address. We found that the council were entitled to visit the site either to check the information they were given or to get further details. In this case they needed a forwarding address and to confirm a leaving date so they could end the council tax liability. We found, on balance, that there was not enough evidence to confidently say whether Mr A's private business had been discussed in front of other people and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council officer unreasonably barred his entry into a public event that was being held in a council facility. He also complained that the officer's behaviour at the time was inappropriate. He then complained to the council about this incident but was dissatisfied with their investigation and response. He said that they had not explained the complaints process to him, and they had not interviewed the only independent witness to these events.

We considered the investigation carried out by the council and noted that they had given Mr C information about the complaints process and asked for contact details for his witness by email. We noted, however, that one of these emails was returned undelivered as the email address, despite being correct, was not recognised. We were satisfied that they had properly investigated his complaint and asked for the witness's details, which Mr C had not originally provided. We also noted that council staff were entitled to take action where they consider that their staff are likely to be subjected to unacceptable behaviour by a member of the public, and that this complied with the council's unacceptable actions policy and their policy on dignity and respect in the workplace. We found no additional evidence to support Mr C's claim that staff had behaved inappropriately when barring him from the event. For these reasons, we did not uphold his complaint. However, we did recommend that, for the sake of completeness, the council now contact his witness to see whether his recollection of events would affect their decision on Mr C's complaint. We also recommended that they ensure that all incidents of unacceptable behaviour by members of the public are properly recorded in line with their own procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• phone Mr C's witness to discuss his recollection of the incident and consider whether his testimony would alter their decision on Mr C's case; and
• ensure that all incidents of unacceptable behaviour towards staff, in council offices or outwith the workplace, are recorded appropriately and in line with their unacceptable actions policy and their policy on dignity and respect in the workplace.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council after they failed to pay him a decoration/disturbance allowance following works to upgrade the bathroom in his temporary accommodation. He believed that he was entitled to this as it was clearly stated in a letter sent to him by the council that this would be paid. This entitlement was also reiterated to him by a contractor who was carrying out a survey to his property prior to the commencement of works.

In their final response to Mr C, and in communications with us, the council made it clear that Mr C should never have been notified that an allowance was payable, as this is provided to cover the costs of redecoration after works and, as a temporary occupant, he is not responsible for the decoration of his accommodation. They apologised to him for this miscommunication and took steps to ensure that a similar mistake would not be made in future. We therefore found that the decision not to pay the allowance was reasonable and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

A gas inspection was carried out at Miss C's home via forced entry. Miss C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide her with appropriate notice about the gas inspection. However, the evidence available confirmed that three attempts were made to gain entry to Miss C's home and appropriate notification was given that a forced entry would occur. The council acted within their remit and followed the appropriate procedures.

Miss C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to her complaint. However, we found that the council responded appropriately to the main points of the complaint raised by Miss C. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Ms C's daughter has special needs and attended a special school where her behaviour meant she had to be restrained on a regular basis. In March 2014 her daughter was injured and severely bruised whilst being restrained. Ms C herself suggested a different type of restraint for use on her daughter. The school agreed to use this method of restraint and trained staff in this technique. However, Ms C then complained about the council using the original type of restraint and also about the council's subsequent investigation into her complaint.

We noted that the restraint technique used was an approved method of restraint suitable for situations such as this. We noted that the school did change the restraint technique to be used on Ms C's daughter to one which Ms C herself had requested, and they carried out training to ensure staff were fully trained on this new technique. We fully accepted, as had the school and council, that her daughter was injured during this restraint but, as trained staff used an approved restraint technique, in line with the school and council's policies, we did not find evidence of administrative failing in this case. We also noted the investigation carried out by the council into Ms C's complaint was reasonable and found no evidence of administrative failure in the way it was carried out. As a result, we did not uphold the complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that the school takes steps to ensure that separate incident forms are completed by all staff who are involved in future incidents where force is used, as required by their Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (Restraint) Policy.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to repair defects with her windows. Mrs C had new windows fitted in late 2012. Since early 2013 she had reported problems with the windows. Each time she did, the council arranged for a joiner to visit and fix the window if necessary. There was no evidence that following those visits Mrs C had reported the fixes had not worked. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he asked Glasgow Life to provide him with a copy of their full complaints procedure, they failed to do so. He also thought that this policy should be available to all who complain. In addition, he complained that a statement in an email sent to him by Glasgow Life was inaccurate as it indicated that they had apologised to him in previous correspondence. He claimed they had never apologised to him.

We found that Mr C's email in which he requested a copy of the complaints procedure was ambiguous and could be interpreted in a number of ways. Considering that Glasgow Life had explained how Mr C could progress his complaint, that the full complaints procedure was available on their website, and that he could have asked them for a copy directly, we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

We also reviewed earlier correspondence between Glasgow Life and Mr C, and noted the empathetic content of their responses. They had apologised that they were unable to provide the facilities and services which Mr C wanted at certain times. As a result of this, we did not uphold his second point of complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A) who had been refused an application made to the council for a crisis grant. The reasons for the refusal were that she had already received a grant in the preceding 28 days and her circumstances had not changed. Miss A requested a review of this decision, which was unsuccessful. In the response letter no reasons were given for the decision. Miss A then requested a second stage review, which was also unsuccessful, and again no reasons were provided in the response. Mr C then complained to us about the lack of reasoning provided. He also felt that the decision to not award a second grant within 28 days was not in line with Scottish Government guidance.

After our enquiries to the council, they accepted that there had been errors in providing reasoning and, as a result, agreed to overturn their decision and pay Miss A the grant. They also agreed to implement new processes to ensure that future decision letters contained detailed reasoning. However, they maintained that their decision-making with regards to her repeat application had been correct. On consulting the Scottish Government guidance, we agreed that there had been failings with regards to the reasons provided but also that they had been correct in their assertion that a second grant should not be paid within 28 days. We believed that the actions they had already agreed to perform were reasonable and, as such, made no further recommendations.