Local Government

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.

Summary

C and their family applied to West Dunbartonshire Council for housing. The council assessed C’s application and awarded 115 points. They said that C qualified for a four-bedroom property.

C said the council had not properly assessed their housing application. They said they required a five-bedroom property and the council had not properly assessed their medical needs.

We found that the points allocated to C were in line with the council’s policy. The allocation of medical points was based on the assessment of an occupational therapist (a method of helping people who have been ill or injured to develop skills or get skills back by giving them certain activities to do - OT) and their assessed was reviewed by a second OT. We therefore did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their family member (A). C was unhappy with the way the council’s social work service conducted a review of A’s care package. The outcome of the council’s review was that the weekly number of hours for an element of A’s support was reduced.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was a lack of rationale within the assessment and care review documentation for the reduction in A’s support. In view of this, we concluded that the review of A’s care package was not conducted reasonably. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C also raised concerns about the way the council investigated and responded to their complaint. We did not identify any failings in the council’s complaint handling. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A for the failure to conduct the review of A’s care package reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Review whether the two-to-one care allowance within A’s current care package adequately meets their social needs. (The review should include provision for C to make representations in relation to this matter.) Inform C of the outcome of this review and provide them with a clear rationale for the decision.

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

• Review documentation should demonstrate that a service user’s identified needs have been fully considered during the decision making process.

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 they were unreasonably banned from Live Borders museum premises, services and events. We found that while Live Borders were entitled to impose the ban as a discretionary decision, we considered that there were failings in their handing of the ban. We found that while Live Borders’ Health and Safety Policy outlines a zero tolerance approach to unacceptable behaviour, we considered that a clearer procedure should have been in place in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure (MCHP). Additionally, we found that the record-keeping and communication around the decision to ban C could have been clearer. We found that there was no record of the initial decision to impose a ban or the communication of this to C. We also found that more consideration could have been given to including specific examples of C’s offending behaviour in the complaint response letter, given the decision to impose an immediate ban. C should have been advised of their right to appeal the decision at the time it was imposed; instead, the earliest documentation of the reasons for the ban was the complaint response letter (which also served as the response to C’s request for an appeal). As a result, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in handling the decision to ban them from Live Borders’ services. 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:

• In line with the MCHP, Live Borders should ensure they have an appropriately detailed procedure for dealing with problem behaviour, and staff are supported in using this. The revised MCHP (found at https://www.spso.org.uk/the-model-complaints-handling-procedures) published on 31 January 2020 provides additional information under the section 'Expected behaviour'.

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 enrolled on a lifeguard course delivered at a leisure centre run by Glasgow Life. The course was delivered over six days, with an assessment on the final day. C sustained an injury on the final day and did not pass the assessment. C raised a number of concerns about the course and requested a refund. Glasgow Life partly upheld C’s complaint and offered C a place on another lifeguard course as a goodwill gesture. C remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to SPSO.

C said that Glasgow Life provided insufficient information about the assessment criteria and did not obtain a completed medical questionnaire before the course started. C also felt that Glasgow Life should have assessed their condition after they reported an injury in writing.

We found that, although C had undertaken a pool test to confirm swimming ability, Glasgow Life did not obtain a completed medical questionnaire from C. We concluded that they did not take sufficient steps to verify that C met all the entry requirements for the lifeguard course. We upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to ensure that they completed a medical questionnaire before enrolling on the course. 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:

• Steps should be taken to establish that an applicant meets all the entry requirements before they are accepted on a lifeguard course.

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 council’s handling of their correspondence in relation to an alleged bus lane contravention. C said that the council responded to their request for the record (evidence) of the contravention, made under subsection 8(5) of the Bus Lane Contraventions (Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 with a notice of rejection under subsection 10(b) of the Regulations. C said that this resulted in them being prematurely moved on to the ‘appeal to the adjudicator’ stage of the process, and they did not have a proper opportunity to make representations to the council.

The council said that they had treated C’s correspondence as a representation against the contravention due to C’s use of the word ‘alleged’ in reference to the contravention, because C appeared unhappy with the issue of the charge notice.

We reviewed all of the evidence provided by both C and the council, as well as the relevant Regulations. We considered that the council had unreasonably interpreted C’s correspondence as being representations against the charge notice, as the evidence supported C’s position that they were making a request for the record of contravention. We considered that this resulted in C missing out on the opportunity to properly make representations to the council before being moved on to the second stage of the appeal process set out in the Regulations. We upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to appropriately respond to their request for information under the Bus Lane Contraventions Regulations. 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:

• The council should be able to correctly distinguish the difference between representations and requests for information in relation to charge notice correspondence, and respond appropriately.

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 handling of a Statutory Nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the Act), which was affecting their home. They had a number of concerns regarding the procedures followed by the council and the abatement notices served under the Act to reduce the nuisance.

In addition, the council had restricted C’s contact to them through a single point of contact, which C considered was unreasonable in the circumstances. C also held concerns regarding the council’s handling of their subsequent complaints about these matters.

We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council’s handling of the nuisance had overall been reasonable, although they identified some minor procedural issues in the way this had been handled. The procedural irregularities did not result in any practical impact, and the handling was, overall, reasonable. In addition, we considered that the council had acted reasonably within their discretion when restricting C’s contact and in responding to their complaints. For these reasons, we did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

C complained about the actions of the council in carrying out roof repair works on a block of flats as an emergency repair, without seeking prior agreement from shared owners. C also raised concerns that the invoice charged for excess materials. C’s flat was let to the council through a management agent, and the council initially sent the invoice for the works to the agent. C complained that the council did not send the invoice to them directly, and they did not receive it until around two years later.

The council noted that the required repair constituted a health and safety risk, and was therefore classed as an emergency and carried out as soon as possible. They confirmed the works were visually checked by a council official before being signed off, and they refuted that excess materials had been charged for. They advised that the opportunity had been taken to clean the gutters while scaffolding was erected, and acknowledged this did not meet the definition of an emergency repair. They confirmed it is normal procedure to send invoices to the party listed on the national landlord registration database, and that in some cases this is the agent. The council considered the delay in the invoice reaching C lay predominantly with the agent, although they accepted they delayed for around six months after the agent had asked them to send the invoice directly to C.

We were satisfied that classification of the works as an emergency was a matter for the council’s discretion, and that their policy entitled them to carry out such work without owners’ agreement. We were unable to evidence that owners were charged for excess materials, but we noted the gutter cleaning work was not an emergency and should not have been carried out without owners’ consent. We were unable to confirm the party listed on the landlord database at the time of the works, but we noted the council contributed to the delay in the invoice being issued directly to C. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for their part in the delay in issuing the invoice to them, and for the failure to seek owners’ agreement for the gutter cleaning 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 waive the charge for gutter cleaning works.

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

• The agreement of all owners should be sought for mutual repairs, unless all the repair work fits the definition of an emergency. The council should remind relevant staff of the importance of adhering to the terms of their Mutual Repairs and Shared Costs Policy in this regard.

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, parents to two children with additional support needs, complained about the social work service provided by the council. C complained that the council failed to provide overnight respite care to meet the family's assessed need. The council upheld the family’s complaint and accepted that there had been a reduction in respite provision. The council explained this situation was beyond their control, as joint overnight respite was not currently available from the service provider and no suitable alternative was available at the time.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council’s assessment documentation should have been more clearly worded to avoid ambiguity. We concluded that it was unreasonable for the council to rely on care arrangements that were ‘subject to availability’ as a long-term position and we considered that they should have done more to explore alternatives. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C also raised concern that the council unreasonably declined to consider new respite arrangements despite acknowledging that the current arrangements were inadequate. At the time, the family was awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal. The family declined the council’s offer of a full-time placement for one of the children on a short-term basis. The council said it was not reasonable to fully explore the family’s support proposals given the uncertainty of the tribunal outcome and the family’s circumstances. We acknowledged this, but found that it was not reasonable for the council to decline to consider interim respite arrangements. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to the family for failing to meet their assessed needs for overnight respite, and for declining to consider alternative arrangements pending the Tribunal outcome. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Consider providing some nights of joint overnight respite or a mutually acceptable alternative (as a one-off provision), in recognition of the period of unmet need and the family’s ongoing difficult situation.

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

• The council should be open to discussion and continue to explore alternatives with families in light of changing circumstances. Where families exercise a right to appeal a decision about longer-term educational placement, this should not preclude their interim respite needs being considered (particularly where their assessed needs are not being met).
• The council should ensure their strategic commissioning takes into account the future needs of all families requiring support. Conditional arrangements should primarily be used in the short term (while action is taken to ensure the need can be met over the longer-term).

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.