Local Government

Summary

C contacted their child's (A) primary school to report concerns about bullying. Two days later an incident occurred between A and other pupils in the school grounds involving a sharp object. C complained to the council about their response to their concerns and the actions they took to safeguard A. Unhappy with their response, C brought their complaint to our office.

We found that the school had discretion to consider what was an appropriate response to allegations of bullying, and the response was in line with policy. We found the actions of the council were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to safeguarding, we found that the council exercised their professional judgement to assess the risks and put measures in place to mitigate those risks. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council's handling of reports of bullying of C's child was unreasonable. The council said that the school had taken C's complaints seriously and acted in line with appropriate guidance and policies. Restorative measures had been taken to attempt to resolve the conflict between the children concerned. The council acknowledged that punitive measure may have been preferred by parents and that their approach may have, therefore, been frustrating. Moreover, the council were limited about the amount of information that could be given to C because of confidentiality issues involving another child.

We found evidence to show that action had been taken in line with the council's stated policy. There was no evidence to show that incidents involving C's child were ongoing and occurring and after consideration, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to provide reasonable support to meet their child's (A) educational and emotional needs at school. We noted that the council's procedures regarding their Staged Intervention Framework do not set out specifically what steps will be taken when concerns about a child's learning are reported or what stage of intervention should be applied. The procedures set out the type of support that may be provided. We considered that it would be a discretionary matter for the council regarding the stage of intervention required and the support to provide. We noted that the support that A received appeared to be consistent with the council's procedures.

We did not find evidence of an administrative or procedural failings regarding the support provided to A. In light of this, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the way that the council had dealt with their reports of noise in their home, and the way in which the council had handled their complaint about this.

The council had previously accepted numerous failings in connection with the issues raised by C. The council acknowledged failures with respect to communication and confirmed they would carry out further investigations and undertake works to address the soundproofing in the property, particularly relating to the transference of noise from a lower level flat.

After a period of a few months, C made a further complaint to the council about failures to take appropriate action and keep C updated with respect to efforts to proceed with soundproofing. C was dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to our office.

We found that the council took reasonable actions with respect to identifying an appropriate action plan, in installing acoustic underlay, as a first step in attempting to address the noise issues. However, restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which were outwith the council's control, resulted in delays in the council being able to carry out the proposed works. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint regarding delay.

However, we found that the council unreasonably failed to communicate with C throughout the lockdown period during 2020 and therefore failed to keep C appropriately updated as to the plans in place to undertake the works. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to communicate effectively regarding the plans to progress agreed works. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• The council should communicate with C regularly to agree the purpose and scope of any additional survey, and/or agree works to be undertaken (at present installation of acoustic underlay), and arrange to complete the work agreed as soon as reasonably practicable, once Scottish Government restrictions in response to Coronavirus allow. The council should communicate with C to agree and arrange appropriate monitoring to robustly test the effectiveness of the acoustic underlay and/or any other works carried out. Should monitoring reveal that the works have not resolved the noise issues, the council should communicate with C to agree further steps, including consideration of those set out in their complaints responses, to address the noise issues at the 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

Mr C's child's nursery raised child protection concerns with social work. Mr C complained about the conduct of the social work investigation. He considered that social work were prejudiced in their actions and manipulated facts to justify their decision to investigate the child protection concerns.

We took independent social work advice, which confirmed that the concerns raised warranted investigation. We concluded that the decision to start a child protection investigation was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, the council might have considered whether there were grounds for the nursery to have acted on the information they had sooner. We fed this back to the council.

Mr C also complained that the communication with him and his wife (Mrs C) during the investigation was inadequate. We were advised that it is normal practice for social work not to communicate with the accused parent in case this jeopardises the investigation. We concluded that the communication with Mr C during the investigation was not inadequate. However, we considered that the communication with Mrs C was inadequate. We noted that she did not appear to have a full understanding of the situation and that social work should have taken earlier steps to pursue the use of an interpreter. Also, when she was told that their child was going to be interviewed by the police and social work at a Joint Investigative Interview (JII), she was told of this over the telephone rather than in person, and she (or someone else familiar to her child) was not given the opportunity to accompany her child to the police station for support. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained that they did not receive a clear explanation of the specific nature of the child protection concerns. We noted that Mrs C's lack of understanding of the situation appeared to include the nature of the allegations. When social workers visited to share the details at the conclusion of the investigation, Mr C was not included in this discussion and it was not clear why this was the case given that no further investigation was planned. Mr and Mrs C were informed the next day of the decision to take no further action. This was not followed up with a written explanation of the decision. Mr C requested written confirmation of the decision but the letter sent merely confirmed the social work case had been closed. Mr C was required to submit a formal complaint to the council before he received an explanation, and even then we considered things could have been explained more clearly. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained about the time it took to complete the investigation. We were advised that there were departures from expected process which resulted in avoidable delays in progressing the investigation. There were delays in opening a record following the initial contact from the nursery; in checking the child protection register; and in contacting the police. Also the JII was unusually held before an Initial Referral Discussion took place. The time taken to decide to take no further action exceeded the target timeframe by 16 calendar days. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for not clearly explaining to them the specific nature of the child protection concerns and for the avoidable delays caused by the departures from expected process in the child protection investigation, and the consequent distress caused.
• Apologise to Mrs C for not explaining the Joint Investigative Interview process to her in person, and for not giving her or someone else familiar to her child the opportunity to accompany the child to the police station for support. The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• In line with the National Guidelines for Child Protection in Scotland, parents/carers should, wherever possible, be given full information about the nature of the concerns. A written record of decisions taken about the outcome of an investigation should be given to parents/carers unless this is likely to impede any criminal investigation; and where necessary explanations should be given more than once and/or in writing.
• In line with the West of Scotland Child Protection Consortium Inter-Agency Child Protection Procedures Manual: the Initial Referral Discussion should take place promptly and more appropriately before a decision is taken to proceed to a Joint Investigative Interview, the child protection register should be checked as part of the initial inquiries and this should happen almost immediately, and certainly before the decision to undertake a Joint Investigative Interview, a record should be opened within 24 hours of the initial contact in which child protection concerns are raised, the Police should be contacted early in the process to discuss whether a joint or single agency response is required and, a decision to proceed to a Child Protection Conference, or to take no further action, should be reached within 21 calendar days of the notification of concern, unless there are clear reasons why the investigation requires a longer time to conclude.
• Staff should ensure the non-accused parent or carer is involved as much as possible. In line with the council's Child Protection Procedures, staff must give careful consideration to providing support and security to the child when carrying out interviews, including whether to ask someone who knows the child well to sit with the child during interviews.

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, a support and advocacy worker, submitted a complaint on behalf of their clients (A and B) regarding the support provided to them by the council's social work service. B is A's main carer and they had concerns that their needs were not assessed appropriately and that they have not been able to use the Self-Directed Support and respite allocation flexibly to meet their needs.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that there was evidence in the records that the council collaborated and consulted appropriately with A and B, had appropriately assessed A's needs and had taken into account information from health professionals involved in A's care. We also noted that the council acted reasonably regarding the flexibility of the Self-Directed Support and respite allocation for A and B and it was reasonable that the direct payment was in A's name given that A is the adult with the assessed health needs. We also considered that reasonable action was taken by the council regarding care and support for A, when B was recovering from operations.

We did not uphold C's complaint that the support provided to A and B was unreasonable.

Summary

C complained that Live Borders had failed to deal with their complaint appropriately. We found that it had been reasonable for the organisation not to pursue contact with witnesses who C had referred to and to instead ask that C obtained statements from them. We also found that the organisation had reasonably investigated the matter and had issued a reasonable response to C's complaint. Whilst there was a clear disagreement between C and the organisation about what had happened, there was no evidence that the organisation did not intend to conduct a genuine investigation or that they supplied dishonest and false information to C. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C is an independent advocate who complained on behalf of their client (A). Following social work involvement, A’s child (B) was placed with kinship carers. This was a voluntary arrangement, in terms of section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. After the relationship with kinship carers broke down, C said that A repeatedly informed social workers and said at meetings that they were no longer in agreement with the arrangement. A did not withdraw consent in writing or specifically say they withdrew consent, but A believed they did so by saying they were not in agreement with the local authority’s position. B was then placed with their other parent (D). A disagreed with that decision.

C complained that the Children’s Reporter (a person who makes decisions to help young people who need care and protection) was not made aware that A was not in agreement with the kinship care plan or with the plan to place B with D. B had no contact with D for four years before being placed with them. C said that A repeatedly expressed their views and those of B in relation to not wanting to be placed with D, but that these were ignored.

We took independent social work advice. We found that after the kinship care arrangement broke down, there followed a period of time during which B’s legal status was unclear. At this point the matter should have been referred back to the Children’s Reporter; this did not happen. We considered that it was incumbent on the council to ensure that there was absolute clarity regarding the legal status of B’s care and what A’s rights were. We found that the council did not do enough to satisfy this obligation or consider whether section 25 was still the most appropriate legislative framework to safeguard B. Taking all of the above into account, we upheld the complaint.

We asked the council to apologise to A but made no further recommendations given significant learning already identified by the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for failing to follow appropriate processes before placing B with D. The apology should recognise the impact of the council’s failings on A. In preparing the apology, the council should have regard to the new Quality Assurance system they refer to in their correspondence. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of a planning application submitted by a recreational club that shares a boundary with his property. Mr C also complained that the decision notice, granting planning permission for the application, unreasonably failed to accurately implement the decision of the planning committee. The council concluded that they had carried out an appropriate assessment of the planning application and the planning permission reflected the decision of the committee.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had carried out an appropriate assessment of the planning application. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to Mr C’s second complaint, we found that the council had unreasonably failed to accurately implement the decision of the planning committee. We found that the wording of the planning condition was ambiguous and open to different interpretation. We concluded that, by not making the condition explicitly clear, the decision notice did not reflect the intention of the planning committee members accurately. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to take action to ensure the club abided by what was outlined in their planning application and supporting documentation. The council considered that the actions taken by the club were in line with the planning permission granted and, as such, it was not appropriate for them to take any further action.

We found that the council had unreasonably failed to take action to ensure that the club abided by what was outlined in their planning application and supporting documentation. By including a condition that was open to interpretation, the council failed to provide a clear and unambiguous decision. As such, this enabled the club to carry out actions contrary to their stated intentions when the planning application was determined. We recognised that it may not have been possible for the council to take formal enforcement action. However, given the circumstances of this case, we concluded it was reasonable to expect the council to give further consideration to what informal steps they could take to resolve the situation. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to accurately implement the decision of the planning committee as a result of including a condition that was unreasonably ambiguous and open to interpretation and for failing to take reasonable measures to ensure the club abided by what was the stated intention of their planning application at the time it was determined. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Consider what actions can reasonably be taken to ensure the club abides by what was outlined in the proposal detailed in the Report to Committee and supporting documentation, bearing in mind that planning permission has been granted and the conditions discharged. Update Mr C with details of what actions, if any, have been carried out and provide an explanation for the decision taken. If it is concluded that further involvement would be counterproductive or may have a negative impact on existing agreements between the different parties, an explanation for this should be provided to Mr C and this office.

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

• Planning decision notices should clearly and accurately reflect the planning proposal and the contents of the Report to Committee/Report of Handling. Planning decision notices, when decided by the planning committee, should clearly and accurately reflect the intentions of the committee members.

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

Mr C complained that for over three years, the council failed to reasonably respond to his and his wife's (Mrs C) concerns about their child's (Child A) additional support for learning needs. Child A has a developmental learning disability. Mr C also said that the council unreasonably removed Child A’s 25 hours of care and support (provided by members of school staff), without first contacting him or Mrs C and that the council behaved unreasonably towards them both.

We found that the council responded appropriately to a number of Mr and Mrs C’s concerns about Child A’s additional support for learning needs. However, there was a significant failure by the council to appropriately signpost Mr and Mrs C to resolution mechanisms for disagreement regarding additional support needs. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We were also concerned about the lack of notes of the meetings between Child A’s school head teacher and Mrs C, which appeared to have been a substitute for Staged Assessment and Intervention meetings and review of Individualised Education Programme targets, and we provided feedback on this point to the council.

In relation to Child A’s support hours, we found that Child A was assessed as requiring a total of 17 hours 50 minutes of support rather than 25 hours. There was no evidence that Child A’s support was unreasonably removed in the manner Mr C described, but that the head teacher contacted Mr C to inform him that the support teacher was leaving the school at around the time they became aware themselves and steps were taken to address the shortfall. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

On the matter of the council’s behaviour towards Mr and Mrs C, we found that the council referred Mr C to their Antisocial Behaviour Policy when they had been advised by their Safer Communities Team (SCT) staff that this was not the correct policy in Mr C’s case, and failed to explain their actions in this regard to our office. We were also concerned that the council failed to respond to Mr C’s complaint about the council’s treatment of the SCT staff’s advice and that their explanation about their decision not to proceed with mediation could have been clearer. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to signpost them to resolution mechanisms for disagreement regarding additional support needs; referring Mr C to their Antisocial Behaviour Policy, when they had been advised by their SCT staff that this was not the correct policy; failing to respond to their complaint about the council’s treatment of the SCT staff’s advice; and not explaining further what they meant by their consideration of ‘previous correspondence between you and the council’ when making their decision not to proceed with mediation. 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:

• Where internal advice is sought and a decision taken to act or not act on it, this should be documented; and council staff should explain their reasons not to proceed with mediation in full to parents.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should appropriately signpost parents to resolution mechanisms for disagreement regarding additional support needs in cases of this type; and to respond to complaints in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure.

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.