Local Government

Summary

Mr C's child went missing while using the school bus service. Mr C complained that his child was put at risk because the driver did not know which children were travelling on the bus that day and did not check when asked by Mr C's wife (Mrs C) to make sure that her child was not on the bus. Mr C complained to the council that the bus driver had not followed procedures. The council had investigated his complaint, and although they made recommendations to improve their school bus service, they found that the driver had followed the procedures in place at the time of the incident. Mr C said that he was not confident in his child using the bus service to and from school because he did not believe that the council had investigated the matter properly. He complained also that the council's recommendations had not been implemented, and he did not believe, therefore, that adequate controls had been put in place to ensure that a similar situation did not occur.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint had not been conducted in accordance with the council's complaints procedure, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, the council had told Mr C that as part of their investigation, they would interview him and this did not happen. The council told us that there had been sufficient information in a statement made by Mrs C at the time of the incident to uphold Mr C's complaint without further interview. The council had failed to make this clear to him and we made recommendations for an apology to be given to Mr C about this.

We understood Mr C's concern that there should not be a recurrence of what had clearly been a serious and distressing incident involving his child. Our investigation found that the council had not given Mr C and his wife sufficient advice about the changes being made, or provided him with clear and consistent advice about the progress and timescale of the implementation of the recommendations. However, we did not uphold the complaint because there was evidence of the changes which had been recommended in the council's findings having been implemented, and no further problems had been reported to the council.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• formally apologise to Mr C and his wife for the failure in the decision letter issued to them to be more empathetic, and the failure to explain to them before, or in the decision letter the reason why it was not considered necessary to interview Mr C's family; and
• formally apologise to Mr C and his wife for not giving fuller advice, at the time of the decision, about implementation of the recommendations.

Summary

Ms C owns an end of terrace house that is joined to a council owned property. When the council carried out improvement works on the roof of their property they required access to it through Ms C's garden. Ms C complained that she had not been told in advance by the council that the works would be carried out. She also complained that the council's contractors had damaged her garden and her roof while carrying out the works, and that she had to pay for the damage.

The council said that Ms C was sent a letter in advance of the works. They offered to remedy the damage made to the garden, however said they were not liable for the damage to the roof.

During our investigation we found that the council did not have any evidence that Ms C was informed of the works in advance and so upheld this complaint and made a recommendation to address it in future. We noted that the council had offered to remedy the damage in the garden, however the contractor had then not done this. For this reason, we upheld the complaint and recommended that the works take place as soon as possible. We concluded that the council had caused some of the damage to Ms C's roof and had not taken steps to remedy it. We upheld this complaint and recommended they reimburse Ms C for the cost of the repairs.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider how to record neighbour notification of works;
• ensure remedial gardening works are carried out; and
• reimburse Ms C for the cost of the roof repairs.

Summary

Miss C said that a teacher dragged her child out of class by the neck, and she complained about this to the council. Miss C was unhappy with the council's response and she complained to us. We could not look at the alleged incident itself, as the SPSO Act 2002 says that we cannot investigate conduct or discipline in schools. We looked at the council's handling of Miss C's complaint.

We found that children, both in groups and as individuals, and school staff were asked about the alleged incident. In particular, the children were given an opportunity to speak to staff in confidence, or to leave an anonymous note. We were satisfied with the council's handling of the complaint and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not acted on two recommendations which were made by the complaints review committee, who hear complaints at the third and final stage of the council's complaint handling procedure for social work complaints. We found that the council had acted reasonably. Specifically there was evidence that the council had acted on the recommendation that they examine other facilities for the delivery of Mr C's son's support programme. Mr C said the council did not comply with a recommendation that future meetings should be recorded and agreed. The council explained that the purpose of the visit in question was to inspect and view the risks to Mr C's disabled son in his home environment. It was not a meeting as traditionally defined or at which decisions were made. We found the council's explanation to be rational and reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action when his neighbour built an extension without applying for planning permission. Under planning legislation, if an extension is to be no more than four metres in height, planning permission is not normally required. However, Mr C noticed that the extension his neighbour was building was more than four metres high and asked the council to take action on this. The council measured the extension as being 4.1 metres high, but decided not to ask for a planning application to be submitted.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that the council were entitled to reach the decision that, although the extension exceeded the permitted development threshold by 0.1 metres and was a breach of planning control, they would not pursue the matter further by requiring the submission of a revised planning application. We took the view that the council had acted reasonably in the circumstances, and did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate responses to his complaints. We found, however, that they had provided reasonable responses to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained that when assessing a planning application, the park authority failed to give priority to the primary aim of the park which is to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Mr C suggested that this application caused conflict amongst the aims of the park and, as a result, section 9 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2011 should be invoked. This requires that the primary aim of the park be given priority where conflict of the other aims exist.

The park authority explained that their planning policies take account of the park's aims. They explained that this development was assessed on its merits, and against the parks policies and local plan, and it was determined that the development could be granted consent and proceed without an unreasonable impact on the area.

We considered the park authority's review of this application and noted that they had demonstrated the relevant policies and procedures against which this development must be assessed. They explained their decision-making process and the reasons for recommending approval to the planning committee. They also provided details of the mitigation required through planning conditions. We found no evidence to suggest that this application was not appropriately considered against relevant planning policies and we found the park authority's view that Section 9 of the Act need not be invoked to be reasonable. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

An advocacy agency complained on behalf of a client (Mr C) that the council had failed to take reasonable account of his circumstances when considering his application for a Community Care Grant under the Scottish Welfare Fund. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint because our investigation found no evidence that in their handling of Mr C's application, the council had not taken reasonable account of his circumstances or considered the matter properly under both the Scottish Government guidance and their own procedures.

Summary

Ms C said that she had experienced unacceptable noise levels from a neighbouring flat. She called the council to report the disturbance and when officers visited they decided, as the tenants had just moved in, that the noise level was not unacceptably high. Ms C called the council's noise monitoring team the next day to complain that a reading had not been taken but she was unhappy about the way the officer spoke to her. She called the following night when there again was noise but the council did not come out to her property. The council's investigation considered her complaints about the member of staff and the anti-social noise and did not uphold her complaints. We considered the council's log of contact with Ms C, their procedures for dealing with noise and complaints handling and found that the officers had no evidence of anti-social noise to act upon and that the council had responded reasonably to her concerns in line with their procedures.

Summary

Miss C complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to her complaint about the transition arrangements for transferring her child from nursery to primary school and that her child's educational needs were not being appropriately met at the school. Miss C's child has additional educational needs and, at the time she complained to us, was being assessed for autistic spectrum disorder.

We were satisfied that the council took Miss C's complaint seriously. They appointed a council education officer to investigate, who met with Miss C to discuss the complaint and the proposed investigation. The findings and proposed recommendations of that investigation were discussed with Miss C at a second meeting during which the council accepted that there were failings in the service Miss C had received. They said that lessons had been learned and they apologised.

However, we were of the view that the council's final decision letter, issued after the second meeting, was premature. This was because Miss C's comments on the minutes of the meeting had not at that time been received and because the officer had told Miss C that she was postponing sending the final decision letter as her involvement was ongoing and a further meeting had been scheduled for a later date. Also, as the decision letter was the council's final response on Miss C's complaint, we considered that the council should have informed Miss C of her right to independent mediation and adjudication under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation of her complaint. There was no evidence the council did so at that time and this alternative avenue did not appear to have been raised until two months later when Miss C made a request for independent mediation after she had removed her child from the school. We were critical of the council for their failure to do so.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Miss C for the failings identified in the handling of her complaint; and
• take steps to ensure that parents of children with additional support needs are appropriately advised of their rights under the Act to access independent adjudication and mediation.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of an application for local housing allowance (LHA) from the tenants of his flat. As landlord, Mr C became concerned when his tenants were late with their rent payment. He requested the council pay the LHA directly to him, and submitted appropriate evidence. They assured him he would receive the appropriate payment when they had processed his application. Two months later the council processed the tenants' claim for LHA, along with Mr C's claim for direct payments and found that the tenants were already receiving payments for a previous tenancy. Mr C, therefore, only received a payment for two weeks' rent, as that was the amount of LHA outstanding at the time of processing.

The council admitted that there were delays in processing the LHA claim. However, they said that they could not make further payments as the tenants had received appropriate LHA payments and they could not raise further payments for the account.

We confirmed that the council delayed in processing both claims. We found that this led them to provide Mr C with inaccurate information, and to continue payments to the tenants even when Mr C had provided sufficient evidence of rent arrears. We concluded that, as the council were responsible for these failures, they should pay Mr C the equivalent of the LHA payments made after his application for direct payments.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• pay Mr C the equivalent of his tenants' rent for the relevant period;
• apologise to Mr C for the delays in handling his tenants' LHA application, for providing him with misleading information, and for the time and effort involved in this complaint; and
• put arrangements in place to ensure that landlords are appropriately informed of any delays in processing and the possible impact this may have on their tenants' LHA claim.