Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that his child had been allocated to a composite class, where he felt the child's wellbeing was not being met. He said the school had not followed the guidelines for composite classes, and had not properly considered his concerns about bullying and his child’s welfare. Our investigation considered the council's policy on composite classes and reviewed the evidence from meetings with the school and the council's responses. We found that the council had delegated authority on the composition of classes to the head teacher, who had operated within the guidelines laid down by the council. We also found that the school had listened to Mr C's concerns about his child’s welfare, and had told Mr C what they would do to address them. Mr C had not, however, raised his concern about bullying directly with the school, and so they had not had a chance to address this. We said that he should raise any future concerns with them.

Summary

Mr C phoned the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team to ask about applying for a crisis grant. The call handler said that he was not eligible because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C then complained because he felt the call handler did not deal with his enquiries properly. In responding to the complaint, the council said they were sorry that Mr C was unhappy with the service, but confirmed that because he was not in receipt of an appropriate qualifying benefit, he was not eligible.

In response to our enquiries, the council told us that they did not process a claim for Mr C because it was clear he did not meet the relevant criteria for a crisis grant. They also said that, since then, the Scottish Government had relaxed the eligibility criteria and if he was now to apply with similar circumstances, they might be able to consider his application. We checked the Scottish Government guidance that was in place when Mr C contacted the council. This confirmed that those applying for a crisis grant should normally be in receipt of certain benefits. However, the guidance also said that the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant was the severity of the applicant's circumstances and the likely impact on them and their family. It also said that if an applicant was not in receipt of qualifying benefits, the council could make an exception to the requirement for this if they were satisfied that the person had no other means of support, and an award would avoid serious damage or risk to the health or safety of them or their family.

We found that in saying that Mr C was not eligible for a crisis grant the council effectively made a decision on his request. In addition, when the Scottish Government clarified the guidance, they did not relax the criteria. The guidance in place when Mr C contacted the council clearly said that the key test of eligibility was the need of the individual, not whether they were in receipt of a qualifying benefit, and that the authority had discretion to make an exception to that requirement. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and found that the council should have processed his application. Had they done so, Mr C could have accessed the review process after being told that he did not meet the criteria, which might have changed the outcome of his application.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to handle his enquiries about a crisis grant appropriately; and
• remind staff administering the Scottish Welfare Fund that, if a person clearly wants to apply, they should process an application appropriately even if success is unlikely.
• 

Summary

Ms C received emails from a council officer that contained comments that she felt were inappropriate. She complained to the council about these and had to chase up replies. When the replies were given, Ms C was dissatisfied with them and complained to us.

We contacted the council asking whether they would act to resolve the complaint, and they did take some action. We then decided to investigate the complaints, and concluded that the emails did contain inappropriate comments about Ms C, and that the council had not responded reasonably to her complaints. As, however, the council had already apologised to her for the inappropriate comments, we did not need to make a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C that the time taken to respond to her complaints was not reasonable.

Summary

Mr C holds a licence issued by the council, and was interviewed after a complaint was made against him as a licence-holder. He complained to the council that he had not been told what his rights were at the interview and asked that they tell him what these were. At the end of their complaints procedure, he remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We found that the interview was not a hearing to determine Mr C's civil rights and so there was no requirement to advise him of his rights at that point. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to his other complaint, we found that the council had, in correspondence, advised Mr C of what his rights had been and so we did not uphold that complaint either.

Summary

Mr C, who is a councillor, complained on behalf of a constituent (Ms A) that the council had not made a proper offer of housing to her and that they had not responded reasonably to his complaints about this. Ms A was designated as being homeless and under statutory legislation was entitled to two priority offers of accommodation. If she refused these, she would be placed on the standard housing waiting list. Mr C complained to us about the second offer of priority housing.

Our investigation found that there was evidence that in making their offer the council followed their procedure, which complied with the relevant legislation. We also found evidence to suggest that Ms A refused the offer, although Mr C had disputed this. The council provided copies of internal documentation, as well as screen shots from their computer system and of a note of a phone conversation with Ms A. Both sides provided evidence that Ms A had appealed a decision by the council on the property in question. The documentation provided to applicants made it clear that appealing the decision would mean that the council would deem the property to have been refused and/or withdrawn. On balance, we considered that the offer had been duly made and then refused.

On the matter of how the council dealt with Mr C's complaint, we found that at the time the council had a three-stage complaints process, which set out timescales by which each stage should be dealt with. The council did not adhere to those timescales and so we upheld the complaint. Since then, the council have introduced the new, nationally adopted, two-stage process based on the model procedure from our Complaints Standards Authority. The council also told us that they had reviewed their complaints resourcing and provided additional resources on a six-month trial basis, after which this would be reviewed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with information on the outcome of the review of resourcing for their complaints handling function.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council about the actions of their agents while they were pursuing a debt with her, and the way she had been spoken to by a council officer on the phone. The council did not respond to her specific concern about the council officer when they replied to her complaints, and so Miss C raised this with us.

Our investigation found that the council had taken steps to clarify the specific matters Miss C wished to complain of. As these included the way she had been spoken to by a council officer and this was not addressed in the council's response, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss C that they did not respond to her specific complaint about the way that a council officer had spoken to her.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council did not keep her informed of her housing allocation points status. She also said that her complaint about this was not properly investigated.

Ms C had been awarded medical points for a previous property but when she moved into a private let these were removed. She only found this out when she attended a meeting about her housing status. When she complained, the council said that her points had been correctly removed and confirmed that she should have been told about this.

Our investigation found that the council should have kept Ms C informed about her housing allocation points, and we upheld her complaint. However, as they had apologised and reminded staff of their responsibilities, we did not make any recommendations. We did not uphold her second complaint as we found that they had conducted their investigation in line with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mrs C is the owner-occupier of a flat in a block of flats. She complained that the council did not give her enough information about the costs of a common housing repair that they carried out in the block.

We found that the council are Mrs C's property factors, and we are excluded from looking at factoring arrangements under schedule 4 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act. We did, however, look at their complaints handling and found that, although improvements could be made in how they responded to her initial queries, they had followed their complaints procedure.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council acted in response to her concerns about an aerial mast in her neighbour's garden, and about their handling of her complaint about this.

We obtained independent planning advice on the complaint from one of our advisers. The council had decided not to take enforcement action against Ms C's neighbour, and taking into account the advice we received, we accepted that this decision was reasonable. The evidence, however, showed a number of failings by the council in handling Ms C's planning enforcement complaint. These included failing to provide a timely response, unreasonably acting on personal information and pre-warning Ms C's neighbour of the initial visit by the planning enforcement officer. On balance, we considered that the council did not act reasonably in respect of Ms C's concerns about the mast.

In terms of the overall handling of Ms C's complaint, we were concerned that when Ms C indicated that she was dissatisfied with the service provided by the council's planning enforcement staff, the council in some of their responses failed to correctly recognise when her planning enforcement complaint became a formal complaint. It was only through Ms C's persistence that this was rectified.

We considered that, given the significance of the overall complaints handling issue described above, on balance, the council failed to reasonably handle Ms C's complaint about the planning enforcement service.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the failings identified to the staff involved to try to prevent a future occurrence;
• ensure that in future full records are kept of site visits in accordance with the council's planning enforcement charter;
• provide us with documentary evidence that they have reviewed their Charter to make it clear that staff should not make contact with third parties during enforcement investigations; and
• provide Ms C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's investigation into a complaint he made about his child's primary school. His complaints included that the school did not put in place necessary meetings and that the council did not investigate his complaint properly. He also said that the council did not discuss his complaint with him before coming to their conclusions.

We found that some of Mr C's concerns were not complaints of service failure or maladministration, rather he disagreed with actions taken by members of staff, and their decisions. In addition we found that one of his complaints was premature as he had not put it to the council. We did not look at any of these matters.

In considering the complaints that we could look at, which were about the meetings and the council's complaints investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints as we found that meetings were held, and that the council investigated and contacted Mr C appropriately.