Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of the council’s social work services department. This was following referrals made by Police Scotland and an NHS board, after there were concerns about Mr C’s whereabouts and wellbeing. On the basis of these referrals, the council wrote to Mr C and advised him that they did not feel there was a need for Adult Services to intervene at that time but that he could contact them if there was anything else he felt they could support him with.

In Mr C’s view, the council unreasonably failed to contact him by telephone and within 24 hours, despite assurances that were given to him by other parties. In addition to this, he said that the council’s conclusion that there was no requirement for Adult Services at that time was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We concluded that it was reasonable for the council to write out to Mr C rather than phoning him within 24 hours. This was because the referral information provided to the council by Police Scotland and the NHS board did not indicate that there was a requirement to contact him by phone or within 24 hours.

We also found that it was reasonable for the council to conclude that there was no role for Adult Services at that time. Again, the council’s decision was based on the referral information provided by Police Scotland and the NHS board. This information stated that there were no immediate concerns for Mr C’s welfare and that he was not presenting as having any acute mental ill health conditions. Therefore, based on the information known to them at the time, we considered the council’s actions to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

C had a child (A). C was subject to a Pre-Birth Risk Assessment. The council put in place a rehabilitation plan to support C in caring for A. It was accepted that this plan did not clearly communicate the council’s concerns to C. The council decided to restart the rehabilitation process (though a shorter one) and considered providing feedback in a different way. The second rehabilitation plan was unsuccessful and A was placed in foster care full-time.

C complained that the council did not provide them with sufficient support to enable A to live with them.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council provided C with reasonable support to enable them to care for A, and noted that C did not always engage with this support. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C communicated with the council regarding their dissatisfaction about the council’s actions in locating a communal bin store and removing fencing and a gate at a property containing flats that both they and the council owned. The council did not formally handle this communication as a complaint for several years. Following consideration of the matter through their complaint procedure, the council confirmed that C wished them to reinstate the fence and gate and relocate the bin store. However, C did not consider that the council had carried out this action within a reasonable timescale. C was also dissatisfied with the response the council gave to further complaints they submitted several months later regarding the suggested works programme the council had provided to them and the replacement of a different gate at the property.

We found that there were unreasonable delays in the council responding to C’s contacts, that the council unreasonably failed to deal with C’s complaints under their complaints handling procedure for several years, that the council unreasonably failed to advise C of revised timescales for responding to their complaints when they were considered under the complaints handling procedure, and that the council unreasonably failed to provide C with meaningful explanations of how they reached their decisions on C’s complaint or clarify their position regarding the title deeds to C’s property.

We also found that the council unreasonably failed to relocate the bin store or reinstate the fence and gate within a reasonable timescale or fulfil C’s request to be consulted and agree plans before they were undertaken. We also noted that the council unreasonably described the information provided to C as “details” of the proposed work, did not reasonably investigate C’s complaint about the replacement of a communal gate, unreasonably failed to update C regarding delays to their response to the second complaint some months later, and did not administer an extension to the timescale for responding to the complaint in line with their complaints handling procedure. We upheld all of C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified. The apology should make clear mention of each of the failings identified and meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Arrange for the relocation and reinstatement works to be completed.
• Provide C with detailed plans for the relocation and reinstatement works agreed to. These plans should show the current and planned locations, designs and dimensions of the fence, gate and bin store and their sites.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Ensure contacts from the public are responded to within a reasonable timescale, that complaints are quickly identified and dealt with under the Model Complaints Handling Procedure (MCHP), that complaints investigations are thorough, that the MCHP is followed when timescales need to be revised and that complaint responses are accurate and provide meaningful explanations of how decisions were reached.

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 complained about the council's involvement in respect of the Welfare Guardianship Order (order which allows someone to make ongoing decisions on behalf of an adult with incapacity) application process. C had applied for a guardianship order in respect of their adult child (A). As part of this process, C's solicitor wrote to the council to request the production of a suitability report. The council allocated a mental health officer (MHO) to carry out this task.

Due to a variety of reasons, the production of a suitability report took a significant length of time. C complained as they felt the council and the MHO unreasonably sought to delay and hinder the progress of their guardianship application. They highlighted that the MHO's communication with doctors required to submit incapacity reports and their involvement in an Adult Support and Protection referral as evidence of this. In C's view, the MHO had acted outwith their remit.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council and the MHO involved in the guardianship process acted reasonably and within their remit. We acknowledged that the process took an unusually long length of time and that this must have been very frustrating for C. In addition to this, we recognised that the MHO and C held very different opinions on A's capacity. However, we were satisfied that it was appropriate for the MHO to provide their professional views and input as part of the guardianship process and that they had carried out their responsibilities appropriately. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C’s property was flooded from an attic above where both they and the council had water storage tanks. The complaint concerned the council’s response to C’s concerns that they had been responsible for the damage to their home and about how the council responded to their associated compensation claim and complaint.

We found that, after C’s insurance claim was made, it took the council seven weeks to provide information to allow the insurers to consider the matter. It took a further six weeks to provide information after being approached by the insurers for comments on their reasons for repudiating the claim. Furthermore, the council failed to comment on an apparent contradiction in those reasons. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

However, we found no grounds to show that the council behaved unreasonably to C during and after the flood was reported. In addition, although C’s councillor raised the complaint on their behalf, there were no specific details or date logged in relation to this. Accordingly, it was not possible for us to determine whether or not the complaint had been appropriately addressed in a timely manner. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should now comment appropriately on the information provided by the insurers and they should apologise to C for their delay in dealing with this matter.

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 made an application to the council for a row of trees neighbouring their property to be removed or reduced in height under the High Hedge (Scotland) Act 2013. This application was refused, as the council did not consider that the trees constituted a hedge under the terms of the Act.

Following new guidance issued by the Scottish Government in 2019, C contacted the council, as they considered this guidance was relevant to their circumstances and suggested that the trees in question should be considered a hedge. The council did not signpost C into the high hedge process, responding that they did not agree and that the original decision should stand.

C then complained to us, as they considered that the council had not had due regard to the new guidance and because there was an inaccuracy in the council's ongoing position regarding the number of trees present.

We found that the council had failed to follow due process, effectively pre-judging their decision before carrying out investigations into the circumstances, and also considered that the council had failed to reasonably explain their position. The evidence also supported C's claim that the council's assessment of the number of trees present was inaccurate. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to signpost them to their high hedge application process or sufficiently respond to the points C raised with them. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Provide C with details of how they can submit an application, should they wish to do so, along with reassurances that this will be considered on its merits, once those have been reasonably investigated and established.

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

• Access to the high hedge application process should be provided, where requested, and sufficient explanations should be provided when the council are explaining their consideration.

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 advice worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) that the council had unreasonably failed to provide A with kinship care assistance, including financial support. A became the carer to their family member (B) when B's parent was unable to care for them. The council initially advised A that a kinship care assessment would take place and that A would receive a kinship care allowance. The council then changed their position. They advised that from the outset, A was clear that they would care for B should B's parent be unable to do so. As a result, their view was that B was not at risk of becoming 'looked after' (a looked after child is a child under the care of the council) and that an assessment was therefore not required and no financial assistance would be provided.

C challenged this decision, stating that B could be considered to be at risk of becoming looked after. This would mean that B could be classed as an eligible child, which would allow kinship allowances to be paid.

We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work and children and family services. We found that the council had not carried out an appropriate assessment to determine whether B was at risk of becoming looked after. The council had largely based their decision-making on statements made by A. We considered that these statements were not adequate evidence that B was not at risk of becoming looked after. We noted that the council's initial actions indicated that they did consider B was at risk of being looked after. In particular:

it was the council who approached A in the first instance to discuss kinship care and what was involved

the council was involved in placing B with A

there was no evidence of a clear discussion regarding the family making their own arrangements

B would have to be accommodated as a looked after child if A did not agree to care for them.

We noted that the council had apologised for indicating that A would receive kinship allowance and then changing their position on this. However, we were concerned that the council had not reflected on why these communication issues occurred or the impact that this had on A. In light of the above, we upheld C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for not carrying out a kinship care assessment which would have clearly identified whether they were eligible to receive kinship allowances in respect of B. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Complete a full kinship care assessment, in line with relevant guidance, should A still want one to be carried out. As far as possible, consideration should be given to the circumstances of the household when the assessment was originally due to take place, not just the current circumstances. If, following the assessment, B is deemed to be eligible:
• any kinship allowance should be backdated to when it would have commenced had the original assessment taken place
• an assessment should take place regarding the local authority paying a contribution towards A's legal costs in respect of obtaining the residence order
• an assessment should take place regarding the provision of a financial allowance in respect of the residence order, backdated to when the allowance would have commenced following A being granted the residence order.

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

• Assessments should be carried out in order to determine whether a child is at risk of becoming looked after.

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 complained on behalf of their family member (A) in relation to a number of aspects of the social work service provided to A's family. A is the parent of two children who are in temporary foster care. C raised concerns about poor communication, the council continuing to use inaccurate reports (despite agreeing to amend these) and the council's handling of their complaint.

We took independent advice from a social worker. In relation to C's concerns about communication, we found that a number of aspects of the council's communication were reasonable. However, we found that the council did not provide A with adequate updates or explanation for the delay in arranging a court date for a hearing in relation to the placement of A's children. On this basis, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Regarding C's concerns about the accuracy of reports provided to the Children's Reporter (a person who makes decisions to help young people who need care and protection), we found that the council, as author and owner of the report, retained responsibility for the content. We noted that the council should ensure the accuracy of the reports provided and make reasonable attempts to correct the record when information previously provided is known to be inaccurate. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, we found a number of failings in the council's handling of C's complaints. We identified investigation delays and issues with the council's communication about timeframes. We also found that some points of complaint were not addressed in the response, whilst other points had not been investigated thoroughly enough. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for not providing adequate updates or explanation for the delay in arranging a court date (and provide an explanation for the delay). Apologise for failing to take appropriate steps to ensure the accuracy of reports provided to and circulated by Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and the complaint handling failings. 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:

• Consistent with the Scottish Government's guidance, parents with parental rights and responsibilities should be given timely information and be involved in decision-making to the maximum amount consistent with the child's welfare.
• The council should ensure that information within social work reports are accurate, including reasonable attempts to correct the record if the council becomes aware of other organisations relying on outdated or inaccurate versions.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Where possible, complaints should not be allocated to an investigating officer on annual leave. Where this cannot be avoided, the complainant should be updated and given an extended deadline for the response. The council should respond to all points of the complaint and give an apology and explanation where it is accepted things have gone wrong. Complaint investigations should take into account any relevant policies and procedures and assess whether the council's actions complied with these.

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 complained that the council did not reasonably assess their application for a Blue Badge (a badge issued to disabled drivers for display on their windscreens, indicating entitlement to specific parking privileges). C applied for a Blue Badge as they suffer from fibromyalgia, amongst other conditions, but noted that due to the variable nature of their condition, it was difficult to answer the questions in the council's application form and considered that they should have received an in-person mobility assessment. C's application for a Blue Badge was refused and the decision to refuse was upheld on review. We found that there was not sufficient evidence for the council to have reasonably assessed C's application in line with The Blue Badge Scheme (Scotland) Code of Practice, and therefore did not adequately demonstrate that a clear and robust decision was made on C's eligibility as the result of the desk-based assessment. We also found they did not explain their decision to refuse C's application in line with the Code of Practice. As a result, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C also complained that they did not received a reasonable response to their complaint from the council. We found that, while the council conducted an appropriate level of investigation into C's complaints, they failed to properly identify, and therefore adequately address, the crux of C's complaints in their responses. We also found that C was not contacted when the complaint response was delayed, which was not in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failures identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Assess a new application from C in line with the Code of Practice and provide a clear and robust decision.

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

• Assessors should fully demonstrate in desk-based assessment forms that they have made a clear and robust decision on eligibility, and considered the factors relevant to an applicant's ability to walk, in line with the Code of Practice. Applicants applying under the 'unable to walk or virtually unable to walk' eligibility criteria should be referred for an independent mobility assessment if the local authority is unable to make a clear and robust decision on eligibility using cross-checking or desk-assessment, in line with section 4.18.2 of the Code of Practice. Local authorities should clearly state in their letter to unsuccessful applicants why their application has been refused, stating why they did not meet the criteria, in line with section 6.2.7 of the Code of Practice.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled 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.

Summary

C complained about the way the council had handled their reports of noise nuisance about a local village hall. The hall was leased by the council to an independent association that was responsible for managing bookings. C felt the noise caused by activities taking place at the hall breached the terms of the lease and believed the council should enforce this. C also reported the matter to the council’s Environmental Health service.

We found that the council handled C’s noise complaints satisfactorily, taking into account the status of the village hall, its lease and the powers available to the council to take enforcement action. We noted that although Environmental Health deemed that the noise was not a statutory nuisance, they continued to engage with the association to work towards an agreeable outcome. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained about the way that the council handled their complaint about the service they received. We found that a number of aspects of the council’s complaint investigation were appropriate. However, we noted that the council failed to update C about the delay in the investigation and provide a revised timescale for the response. On balance, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to update them about the delay in the investigation and provide a revised timescale for the response. 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.