Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an adoption. They said that the council failed to alert them to legal issues that arose because of a change in legislation,and led to significant delay and expense. Mr and Mrs C also said that other prospective adopters had been treated differently and their adoptions had proceeded successfully. They said that they had been put under pressure about the way in which to progress the adoption.

In investigating the complaint, we considered all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence, counsel's opinion and the council's adoption policy, and made further enquiries of the council. Our investigation found that much of the complaint hinged on the time taken by the court to release Mr and Mrs C's prospective daughter for adoption, and that this was a matter outside the council's control. Similarly, the council did not have control over other issues arising from the change in legislation. The council held particular views about the way to deal with these, with which Mr and Mrs C did not agree, but this was not in itself evidence of maladministration. Neither were the council responsible for the extra legal costs that occurred as a result of Mr and Mrs C's instructions to their solicitor. We noted that the council agreed to increase their usual financial contribution towards the legal fees in recognition of the difficult and different situation that had arisen. Overall, therefore, we did not find that the council had failed to take steps to expedite the adoption nor had they placed Mr and Mrs C under undue pressure.

Summary

A wall between Mrs C's property and neighbouring properties was in need of repair and Mrs C asked a builder to attend to this. However, the council stepped in and said planning consent was needed for the work, which was in a conservation area. It also turned out that the council were partly responsible for the wall. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably failed to notify her that they were part owners of the wall, failed to repair and maintain it, and required Mrs C's builder to undertake extra work on it at significantly more cost to her.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser on this case. He explained that it was for Mrs C to clarify the ownership of the wall before starting work, by taking her own legal advice or contacting the council's legal department. It was also for her to obtain listed building consent to demolish and rebuild the wall. The adviser said that he would not expect a planning officer dealing with a general phone call about the condition of a wall to know that the council were part owners of it.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. There was no documentary evidence of any phone contact between her and the council about the condition of the wall during the time she was complaining about. The council said that they were unaware that it was in a poor condition, and we took the view that they could not, therefore, be expected to have arranged for it to be repaired or rebuilt.

The council acknowledged that they were part owners of the wall and were liable for some of the costs of repairs and maintenance. Any dispute about this was, however, a private matter between Mrs C and the council and was not something we could consider. It was clear from the advice we obtained that once they knew there was an issue with the wall, the council were entitled, in their role as planning authority, to take steps to ensure that it was rebuilt in accordance with the relevant conservation area and listed building requirements. It was also clear that Mrs C authorised the builder to act on her behalf in these negotiations and so any work was done with her consent. We did make a recommendation as we found that the council had no records of what happened after Mrs C complained.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, in future, the council keep records of action taken by their officers in response to planning complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond fully to his complaint about the standard of service they provided when he applied to them for a letter of comfort (a document provided to satisfy a buyer that the local authority will not take action to have work remedied) for a property he owned. He said that the house sale did not complete on time because of the council's delay, and that he was dissatisfied because the council had maintained that they had dealt with the matter competently. He considered that their actions showed that they had no commitment to customer experience.

Our investigation found that the council had looked into the matter by reviewing the contact between Mr C and their officers, and the level of service provided. They told us that there were no specific timescales for inspections and responses to letters of comfort, but that there was guidance in the application form that Mr C had completed. This indicated that they aimed to complete a request within two weeks of receipt of an application, although the service provided was usually quicker than this. The evidence showed that they had responded to Mr C in eight working days (ie within two weeks). They accepted that they had not acknowledged all of Mr C's emails, and although they said that they had phoned him, we were unable to verify this because of a lack of records of calls made. They also said that the reply was delayed as it had to be signed off, but we found no evidence that this was not done on the day the visit to the property took place. As the time taken from the request being made to the letter being provided was within the timescale provided to the public about the service, we did not uphold the complaint. We did, however, recommend to the council that they take steps to review their record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to review their record-keeping, especially with regard to letter of comfort inspection sheets and phone calls.

Summary

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh, on which work was done under a statutory notice issued by the council. She complained to the council that they had not told her how her complaint about the management of this work would be reviewed. She then complained about this to us, saying that the council's review of her complaint did not look into her concerns fully.

When we investigated the complaint, we found a gap in the council's record-keeping because they did not provide us with some relevant correspondence between Ms C and their property conservation section. We also found that they had not told her how the review process would be conducted, because they had not sent the letter containing the advice about this to her home address. The council acknowledged that Ms C had not been provided with assurances that, despite a backlog in the handling of complaints about statutory notice cases, her case was being reviewed through an approved process.

We also found that email correspondence from Ms C to the council about her concerns over the contract of works was not included in the documents that formed part of the review. However, we found evidence that the review did consider the management of the repairs and her concerns were, therefore, covered in it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the failure in their record-keeping and their failure to write to her at her home address with advice about how the review process would be conducted; and
• apologise to Ms C for their failure to include an email in their consideration of her complaint about the management of statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C's late aunt (Ms A) had been in hospital following a stroke, and was discharged to a nursing home. Mr C complained that council social workers did not give Ms A the chance to visit the nursing home before sending her there (even though the manager had offered to let her visit), and did not offer her a choice of homes. He also said that the council failed to obtain the views of or inform Ms A's advocate and her family.

We do not normally investigate complaints about the actions of social workers, as these are normally considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), who have greater powers than we do to question the decisions of social workers. In this case, however, the council had decided that the complaint could not be considered by a CRC, so we investigated the actions of the social workers. In doing so, we took independent advice from a social work adviser with significant experience in older people’s services.

Ms A was considered to lack the capacity to make her own decisions. However, the council's assessment of her said that she had a little insight and would be pleased to be helped to seek a good nursing home placement. Despite this, Ms A was then discharged to a nursing home that she had not seen. The council told us this was because hospital staff had said that a visit to another home had unsettled her. However, there was no evidence that, before Ms A was discharged, social workers had assessed her needs, taken into account her wishes, or gathered information from a range of sources, including her independent advocate. This amounted to a failure to obtain and consider material and important information. We took the view that, at the very least, social work staff should have recorded why they felt that the views and interests of hospital staff should take precedence over those of Ms A. We would have expected the records to show why the potential upset of a visit was felt to be more significant than that of having to move to a home that she had not seen or visited.

We also found that the council had failed to give Ms A a choice of nursing homes, as they should have done in line with both national policy and their own policy on patients being discharged from hospital to a home. In addition, Mr C was recorded as Ms A's next of kin, but the council had not contacted him about Ms A’s discharge in line with principle 4 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. We found that these failings amounted to maladministration and upheld Mr C's complaint about Ms A’s discharge to the nursing home.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the council handled his complaint. They had suspended it, as they considered that he was not entitled to confidential information about Ms A, and in view of this decided that a CRC could not be held. Guidance from the Scottish Government on holding CRCs says that a complainant has no right of access to personal information held about a third party, unless the third party gives consent. As Ms A had died before Mr C made his complaint, consent could not be obtained. In view of this, we considered that it was reasonable for the council not to refer the complaint to a CRC, and noted that the decision to suspend it had in fact been approved by a CRC. However, we found that the council had delayed in dealing with Mr C's complaints. They had also incorrectly told him that no family members had been recorded as next of kin. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings we identified;
• take steps to ensure that all staff involved in the discharge of patients from hospital are aware of and are acting in line with the relevant national and council policies;
• consider issuing guidance to staff on how they should complete one of the relevant forms when patients are discharged to a care home; and
• confirm that lessons have been learned and steps have been taken to prevent similar delays occurring when they respond to complaints about social work issues.

Summary

Ms C was rehoused following problems with antisocial behaviour in her previous neighbourhood, but was unhappy with the new property as there were some problems with a neighbour. She complained that the council were at fault in allocating her a new property where it was known that there were also antisocial behaviour problems and that they had withheld this information from her.

Our investigation found evidence that the council had taken into consideration the circumstances surrounding Ms C being rehoused, had conducted a risk assessment and allocated the property to her in line with their policies and procedures. We did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained to us about how the council handled their complaints about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour (ASB). They said that their sleep was frequently disturbed and they were concerned for the safety of their family and property. They complained that the council had failed to investigate, had not responded to complaints within their published timescales and did not keep them informed about what action was being taken. Mr C and Ms C had also kept diary sheets with details of the disturbances that had been occurring, and they said that the council had failed to act on these.

We upheld Mr C and Ms C's complaint. Our investigation found that they had complained to the council over a nineteen-month period. The council had recorded or noted several incidents, and had taken action after the first few, but had then failed to follow up later complaints appropriately. We found that the council had only issued diary sheets once, and had not followed up when they did not receive completed copies. We also found that internal communication documents showed that the council were aware that the situation was deteriorating, but they took several months to achieve a satisfactory solution. The council also failed to appropriately record and respond to each complaint within their published timescales and, in particular, did not keep Mr C and Ms C informed of the outcome of their investigations or their decisions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that staff are fully aware of the requirements in relation to the maintenance of records of complaints, interviews and communications in relation to ASB;
• ensure that staff fulfil the requirements of the council's procedure and guidance in relation to diary sheets;
• highlight to staff the impact of not responding to complaints of ASB within their published timescales; and
• apologise to Ms C and Mr C for the failings we identified and for the time taken in bringing this complaint to us.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about their handling of an incident involving her late brother (Mr A). Mr A had severe learning difficulties and at the time of the incident was receiving 24-hour support at home from a care provider. He fell down a flight of stairs and was seriously injured, after the carer administered a drug with a sedative effect. Mr A died some time later.

We acknowledged that the council's communication with Ms C could have been clearer in relation to who was actually investigating the incident but did not consider that they had intentionally misled her. Neither did we consider it unreasonable that the council did not hold a further complaints hearing after Ms C provided them with a report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the report contained little information that was not already available to the council. We also determined that the council provided a reasonable explanation about why they did not follow procedures laid out in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and associated code of practice issued by the Scottish Government.

We noted, however, that the Scottish Government introduced guidance two months after the incident, clarifying the role of the chief social work officer (CSWO). This outlined that the CSWO should ensure that significant case reviews are carried out into all critical incidents either resulting in, or which could have resulted in, death or serious harm. Although the guidance was not in place at the time of the incident involving Ms C's brother, it came into effect less than two months later, and the council received the care provider's report into the investigation after the guidance had been published. Given the seriousness of the incident, therefore, and the fact that the HSE only recently disclosed more of their report, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to have conducted a significant case review. This would have enabled them to look at all aspects of Mr A's care, to properly establish whether any lessons had to be learned or improvements in practice were needed. As, however, the independent chair of the council's adult support and protection committee had since agreed to conduct such a review, we made no recommendations about this.

Summary

Mr C complained about the development process after a development close to his home was given planning permission. He said that the permission granted was subject to twelve conditions as the site concerned was both prominent and beautiful. Mr C said that the developer ignored a number of the conditions and that although Mr C complained, the council had failed to take enforcement action and had been 'soft' on the developer and his agents.

The complaint was investigated and all the relevant documentation and the complaints correspondence was taken into account. Independent planning advice was also obtained and taken into consideration. Our investigation found that the development was complicated because of the nature of the site, but that the council had closely monitored it. While enforcement action was considered because of problems with adherence to the conditions, the council opted to progress this by negotiating with the developer, as they had the right to decide to do. Our adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable approach for them to take. We also found that the council had looked at all Mr C's complaints and, where necessary, had raised his concerns with the developer.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the council's actions in relation to planning permission that they granted for an agricultural building. She said that they had failed to take into account a legal agreement they had made with the applicant a number of years before. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the council had considered the legal agreement, but were entitled to decide not to take any action against the applicant in relation to it. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to give the environmental impact of the application the level of scrutiny required by their policies and relevant plans. We considered that the environmental impact had been adequately assessed, and that they had not been required to consider alternative sites for the building.

Although in their report on the matter the council had not listed a policy that was particularly relevant to the application, and we upheld Mrs C's complaint about that, we found that they did consider the issues in the policy during the application and so the omission did not appear to have affected the outcome. We also found that, other than this, they had presented the relevant information. In addition, we found that they engaged reasonably with local residents who objected to the application. Finally, Mrs C said that the council had failed to take action against the applicant for misleading consultees during the pre-planning consultation process. We found, however, that it had been reasonable for them not to do so. There are no provisions in planning legislation for such action and the only redress for any issues arising from the pre-application consultation stage is through consideration of how these may have affected the merits of the application once it is made.