Local Government

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.

Summary

Mrs C's son, who had previously been educated elsewhere, wished to enter sixth year at the local council-run secondary school. The council said they would not allow this as Mrs C's son was of an age where, according to their view of relevant law, her son was an adult. Mrs C complained about the council's decision, and about their handling of her complaint.

We looked at the council's response to Mrs C's complaint and although she disagreed with their position, which was based on their interpretation of relevant law, the council had consistently explained to her that her son was considered to be an adult and, therefore, there was no duty on them to provide him with a place at the school. It was not our role to resolve differing interpretations of the law, or to interpret it ourselves. Therefore, we would not give a view on the correctness, or otherwise, in law of the council's position. We could not uphold Mrs C's complaint just because she disagreed with the council.

In terms of the council's administration of the complaint, we found they should have explained to Mrs C earlier what stage her complaint was at, and they should have proactively provided her with updates. This would have helped Mrs C know when to expect a reply from the council. In addition, the same council officer made the decision not to allow Mrs C's son to enrol in the school, and dealt with Mrs C's complaint at both stages of the complaints process. This was inappropriate, and the council accepted this and had a different officer review the complaint. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff responding to enquiries and complaints not to refer to procedures where no such procedures exist;
• remind relevant secondary school staff of the council's position on dealing with applications from adults wishing to return to secondary school;
• apologise for their failure to explain to Mrs C early in the process at what stage her complaint was being dealt with, and their failure to proactively update her on progress;
• remind their complaints handlers to explain to complainants early in the process what stage their complaint is at, and the relevant timescales that apply; and
• remind their complaints handlers that staff who were involved in the matter complained about, or involved at a previous stage of the complaints process, should not respond to (later stage) complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that for the four years her son (Mr A) had been a pupil at a school within the council area, no assessment was made of what extra support he required, and teachers did not provide supportive evidence. This was despite her requests that her son was assessed to determine what extra support needs he had. She said that after Mr A left the school, he began to attend a local further education college where he was given a full psychological assessment. The associated report confirmed that Mr A had signs of dyslexia. Mrs C believed that as a consequence of the school's actions, Mr A did not perform as well as he could have in his exams. She said that his self confidence had been detrimentally affected.

Our investigation found that throughout Mr A's school career, whenever Mrs C had asked for his support to be considered, her request was reviewed in terms of the council's policy and, where necessary, appropriate support was provided. Mr A was given the means by which he could perform to his best ability and he performed as had been predicted (and on occasion better) in an independent assessment all pupils had been given. Furthermore, although Mrs C requested special adjustments for Mr A during his exams, his teachers' views had been obtained and assessed and the Scottish Qualifications Authority consulted and it was determined, on this basis, that he did not require extra support. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is an independent advocate, complained to the council on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that their children's school had not addressed their children's support needs, not protected their well-being, treated them unfairly, and that Mr and Mrs A's complaints to the school were not dealt with appropriately.

We reviewed the correspondence between Ms C and the council, their complaints handling procedures and the evidence considered in the council's investigation. We found that there was unreasonable delay in the handling of the complaint as it was not promptly allocated to the investigating officer and, although they apologised for the delay, the council did not explain their error. The investigation, once underway, was thorough and there was no clear evidence to support the views of the parents. As the council had taken steps to address the allocation of complaints and recognised what they needed to put in place to rebuild trust between the parents and the school, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's home was regularly affected by flooding. Mr C complained that this was due to an inadequate road drainage system. He said that the council had accepted this, but although they had committed in 2012 to resolve the problem, no work had been carried out. The council said they had been actively seeking a solution to the problem since 2013 following a formal complaint from Mr C. They required access to privately owned land and negotiating this had proved complicated. They accepted matters had taken longer than they would have wished, but felt they had acted reasonably and that the delays were due to matters outside their control.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found the council had made a written commitment to resolve the problem in 2012. The evidence showed that they had not, however, pursued this solution until Mr C had formally complained and contacted us about their lack of response. We found the delay in starting work on the project was excessive and was due in part to failures by the council. We also found that the council adopted a contradictory position by accepting responsibility in 2012, before suggesting, when Mr C complained in 2013, that he was responsible for managing flood risk. This also contributed to the delay in commencing work to mitigate the flood risk to his home.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings that our investigation identified;
• update Mr C and us on the progress being made against the timetable for completion of the project; and
• provide Mr C and us with a clear timetable for completion of the project.

Summary

Mr C complained about the closure of his local library and re-development of the building. He said that the council had not done what they said they would do; that they had provided inaccurate information on an external funding application; and that they did not deal reasonably with his subsequent complaints.

Our investigation found that the council had undertaken community consultation and consideration of the various options for the re-development as they had said they would. Mr C did not agree with the option chosen, but this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. On the funding application, we found that some of the information Mr C described as inaccurate was subjective, but that this did not necessarily make it inaccurate. Other comments were contained within internal documentation which, although relevant to the application, did not actually form part of the submitted application.

We also found that, although there was an initial delay in passing the complaint to the relevant department, overall the council complied with their complaints procedure and provided Mr C with comprehensive information in response to his concerns. Mr C did not agree with the council's viewpoint on certain issues, but this was not the same as failing to deal with these issues.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for four wind turbines near his home. He told us the council failed to respond to his letters before the case went to planning committee. We found that the council had replied reasonably and within a suitable timescale to Mr C's letters which postdated the committee meetings. We told Mr C that the council's obligation was to consider any material objection made to the application and that they were not obliged to respond to ongoing correspondence other than, as in this case, via the complaints handling procedure.

We found that the council had followed the usual and agreed decision-making process. The case was heard by a planning committee which recommended planning approval be delegated to a senior planning officer. We found no evidence, as Mr C believed, that the council had extended its usual 28 day representations period to 90 days. We found evidence that Mr C's objections were properly taken account of within the decision-making process.