Local Government

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.

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.