Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that City Parking (Glasgow) had ignored the findings of the adjudicator of the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. He was unhappy about an incident where a parking warden told him that he could not stop outside a hotel to collect luggage. On being warned he would incur a fine if he stopped there, he moved the car to a parking bay and paid for a ticket. He was unhappy about this because he had previously gone to the parking adjudicator about an earlier fine involving a similar issue. He had won that case and believed that this entitled him to stop on a single yellow line to load or unload passengers.

We found that while the council's interpretation of the traffic order differed from that of the parking adjudicator, each case is dealt with on its merits and the parking adjudicator's decision does not set a precedent. We also found that the parking adjudicator's decision did not give Mr C future rights under the traffic order that governs parking in the city.

Summary

Mr C was excluded from all the leisure facilities operated by the trust after an incident at one of the centres, which involved a member of staff. He complained that the investigation into his complaint about being excluded failed to take account of all the evidence.

We found that the decision to exclude Mr C appeared to have been taken on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of senior staff within the trust, and that they put no time-frame on his exclusion. The trust told us that they did not have a particular policy about excluding customers. We also found evidence that their investigation was not completed properly, because they did not clarify with Mr C what he was complaining about, and the evidence on which they relied in coming to their decision was incomplete, informal or unavailable. We upheld his complaints and made relevant recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the trust:

• prioritise formulating appropriate policy and procedures on the handling of complaints about unacceptable behaviour by customers, and the penalties if a complaint is upheld;
• consider the requirement for any complaint about a customer to be put to him/her in writing, providing advice of the right to make representations and a deadline for the submission, and an explanation of how any investigation will be conducted;
• set timescales for the length of time an exclusion will be in place when the trust have decided to exclude a customer from their facilities; and
• revisit the current situation on Mr C's exclusion in the light of the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) has a severe form of autism (a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and significant learning disabilities. The council recognised that her current tenancy did not meet her needs, and awarded her additional housing points. They did not, however, offer her the tenancy of a vacant property that Mr C had thought suitable for her. The council said that they had in fact assessed the property to see if it met Miss A's needs, and decided that it would not do so long-term. Mr C complained that this decision was based on false information and that the council had offered no solution to Miss A's housing difficulties.

Our investigation looked at the council's housing allocations policy, records of Miss A's needs and housing assessments, internal council correspondence about her housing allocation, and social work case notes. We also asked for more information about the assessment. We found that the council had followed their procedures properly, and that a social worker and a senior occupational therapy practitioner had assessed the property. They had decided that although it would meet Miss A's needs in some ways, overall it was unsuitable and they could not recommend it for her. This was a decision for them to take and as we found they had gone about it properly, we could not question it.

Summary

Mr C told us he had raised concerns about the behaviour, actions and attitudes of a number of council staff towards him. The council said they did not consider the complaints handling procedure to be the appropriate process to investigate his concerns and that they had been looked at under internal management policies instead. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained to us.

We looked at the model complaints handling procedure on which all councils should base their internal procedure, as introduced by our Complaints Standards Authority. This says that it should cover complaints about staff attitude, and also requires councils to advise complainants about their right to come to us if they remain dissatisfied after their consideration of a complaint.

We said that the council's interpretation was incorrect. Mr C's complaints about staff attitudes should have been considered under the complaints handling procedure. If investigation of such a complaint about staff attitude indicated that disciplinary action was indicated, then any disciplinary proceedings should be considered in private rather than as part of the complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to consider Mr C's complaints under the complaints handling procedure and for failing to inform him of his right to complain to the SPSO; and
• ensure internal guidance to staff on the complaints handling procedure accurately reflects the distinction between complaints about staff attitudes and the disciplinary procedures that may flow from such complaints, and provide us with a copy of the guidance.

Summary

Ms C became concerned about her child's educational progress after the child moved schools and reported classroom disruption. She complained to the council about this, and said that the school adopted a defensive and unhelpful attitude at a meeting she attended. The council investigated, but did not uphold her complaints.

Ms C then complained to us that the council did not adequately investigate and respond to her. Our investigation found that the council's investigation had not established all the relevant facts, and we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not adequately investigating and responding to her complaint; and
• investigate further her concerns about her child's individual progress and the classroom environment.

Summary

Mr C had outstanding council tax to pay for 2012/13, and made two payments to cover this. However, the council's computer system can only match payments with the exact amount outstanding, and Mr C had paid by sending two sums totalling the amount owed. Where the amount paid does not match the full amount owed, the system defaults to allocate it against the current year's council tax bill. Mr C did not know this, and had correctly followed the council's instructions when making his payments. He then received a summary warrant for the outstanding 2012/13 amount. He challenged the bill, and the council then said he had council tax outstanding for 2012/13. They later found that the sums paid had been allocated to the wrong year, but told him they could have done nothing to avoid this or the problems that later occurred. Mr C was unhappy at the time they took to identify the error and cancel the summary warrant, and complained to us.

We found that Mr C could not have been expected to be aware of the problem. We noted what the council said about their computer system, and that it cannot be modified, but we took the view that they were aware of this, and that it was for them to sort out problems that might arise. There was no evidence that they had done so, and the council's file showed that no-one checked Mr C's council tax records before applying for the warrant to be served. We would also expect the council to have checked his records and identified the problem when he then got in touch about the warrant, but this did not happen until he asked for a detailed breakdown of his account. We found that the council did not take adequate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns when he raised them, and so unnecessarily pursued him for unpaid council tax.

We also found that when Mr C complained, the council did not tell him that there would be a delay in replying, and he had to chase them several times for a response. When they did respond, they did so comprehensively and provided detailed answers to his complaint. However, we found that they could have acted sooner to address his concerns when he raised them. Lack of effective investigation at the early stages meant a large exchange of emails, and ultimately led to his complaint. There were also delays in recognising the error in Mr C's bill, in communicating with the sheriff officers, and in responding to his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their processes for payment of council tax arrears, obtaining summary warrants for unpaid council tax and dealing with queries about such warrants, to ensure that any computer errors of the type noted in this complaint can be identified by council staff; and
• make a redress payment to Mr C in recognition of their failure to identify the computer error at an early stage and to communicate the cancellation of the summary warrant promptly to the sheriff officers.