Local Government

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably removed their child (A) from their care following an incident at A's nursery. C said that the council removed A from their home without a court order and said they did not enter into a voluntary agreement that A would be cared for by their other parent, as had been suggested by the council.

We took independent advice from a social worker with experience with children and families. We found that the council failed to take account of the court order which appeared to be already in place for A and stipulated the arrangements for A's care, when deciding to place A with their other parent, particularly as the council were changing these arrangements. We noted that as a court order appeared to be in place, it was not automatic that parental rights could be exercised by either parent without the consent of the other, as the council had stated. If the arrangement following the nursery incident was not mutually agreed and went against C's wishes (which appeared to be the case), then in order to remove A from C, even if placing them with their other parent, there should have been a legal framework to enable this to happen - such as applying for a child protection order, if the council believed it was unsafe for A to remain in C's care. We considered that the council's actions were unreasonable and were not in A's best interests.

We were also critical of the council for failing to minute the multi-agency welfare meetings to discuss A's care and the changes to this, and of the council's record-keeping. We considered that there was a lack of clarity in respect to the action taken and the legal basis for doing so, including a lack of evidence that this was shared with C in a transparent way. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to take account of the court order for residence that appeared to be in place for A prior to removing A from C and stipulating conditions for their care; and failing to produce minutes of multi-agency meetings held regarding A's care. 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:

• A record of multi-agency meetings should be available to ensure that there is a shared understanding of the concerns and the plan for the child and so that the parents and child have an opportunity to have their views recorded. The record should state clear outcomes, which include who is accountable for taking any action forward, in accordance with sections 33 and 34 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which outlines the requirement in respect of a child's plan.
• In cases of this type, the council should take account of a court order for residence, prior to removing a child from a parent's care and stipulating alternative care arrangements.
• Social work records should clearly evidence the action taken in cases of this type, including any legal basis for taking that action.

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 social work service provided to their family by the council. A social worker first had contact with the family after the police charged C's child (A) with an offence. Social work, as part of a multi-agency group, contributed to risk management plans. Under these plans, A's contact with peers and access to school and extracurricular activities was limited.

C complained that the risk plans were too restrictive and disproportionately impacted on A's educational attainment, wellbeing and social relationships. The council did not uphold C's complaint. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the social work service acted reasonably in the course of making and managing the restrictions. We found evidence of reasonable support and engagement with the family and social workers being responsive to the concerns, including reducing the restrictions when it was considered appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C also raised concern that the service inappropriately shared confidential information about A with a health professional. We were not critical of the council's rationale for sharing the information. However, having reviewed the relevant guidance on information sharing, we considered that, before sharing the information, the council should have informed A's family of the intention to share information and provided reasons for this. We also found that the council's record-keeping of the information disclosure was insufficiently detailed. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations.

Finally, C was unhappy with the way the council handled their complaint. In particular, C raised concern that there was an unreasonable delay in responding and a conflict of interest given the involvement of a manager in the investigation. We found that the council took reasonable steps to extend the timescale to 40 working days, although it appeared they then missed the revised timescale by a small number of days. We did not find failings in relation to the investigation performed. On balance, we concluded that the council handled the complaint appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A for failing to inform them about the intention to share the information or the reason for this; and failing to fully document the information disclosure. 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:

• Information sharing should be conducted in line with the relevant legislation and guidance. Where information is shared, an appropriate record of this should be maintained.

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 constituent (A) about the council. A and their child had been homeless and living in temporary accommodation. They were offered permanent accommodation but turned this down, as they did not consider the property to be suitable. The council were satisfied that they had discharged their legal duty, as A had refused what was considered a reasonable offer of permanent accommodation. A requested a review of the offer of permanent accommodation. The council's appeal panel considered A's request and concluded that the offer of permanent accommodation was reasonable and stated that, as a result, they would not make a further offer of housing to A.

C complained that the council did not appropriately consider all the points raised by A in the request for review. Therefore, C did not consider the council to have handled the request for review reasonably. In addition to this, C complained about the council's communication with A in respect of housing matters.

In response to our enquiries, the council acknowledged they did not appropriately address all the points A made in their request for review in a satisfactory manner. Furthermore, the council identified that information requested from A by the appeals panel was either not relevant or was already accessible. Based on our review of the evidence, and taking into account the council's response, we concluded that the council failed to consider A's review request in a reasonable or appropriate manner. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

In respect of communication, the council also acknowledged failings that were not identified as part of their investigation into A's complaint. We also identified further failings in respect of communication during the review process and when A's housing officer was off work for a significant period of time. In light of these failings, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for failing to consider their request for a review of an offer of housing in an appropriate or reasonable manner and for the instances where there was a failure to provide a reasonable level of communication in respect of housing matters. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Ensure that the process failings identified are taken into account when considering any future applications for housing made by A.

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

• Service users should receive a reasonable level of communication when contacting the council in respect of housing matters. Tenants should be informed if their housing officer is expected to be absent for a significant length of time. Communication with service users should be recorded appropriately.
• Requests for a review of a homeless decision or an offer of housing should be considered and decided in line with the relevant council guidance/policy.

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 two incidents involving their child (A) and another child at school. C said that child protection procedures should have been followed.

We did not consider that C's complaint was a child protection matter and therefore child protection procedures did not require to be followed. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we considered that the school could have managed the incidents better, particularly in relation to their communication with A so that they felt supported and respected.

C also complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the school advising them of the first incident. We considered that C was told within a reasonable period of time. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained about a refusal to allow them to take an audio recording of a meeting with the head teacher of the school. Whilst we appreciated why C wanted to record the meeting, we did not uphold this complaint on the basis that the head teacher was entitled to refuse this. We considered that the offer to bring someone to support C to the meeting and the opportunity to comment on a minute of the meeting afterwards to be reasonable.

Summary

C adopted a young child, however the placement ended after a short period of time and the child was removed from C's care. C complained to the council about the lack of support provided during the adoption placement, that the placement ended abruptly and that the council did not follow all of the recommendations in the disruption report completed after the ending of the placement.

The council advised that support was offered to C, however they recognised that an additional meeting to review the situation and offer practical support may have been helpful. The council also acknowledged the placement ended abruptly but considered it was managed well. The council said they implemented the recommendations detailed in the disruption report.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council failed to recognise the need to formally review the child's plan and respond to C's requests for support. We found that the council failed to ensure the placement ended in a more planned way or to recognise that more weight should have been given to a child's experience of significant trauma. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in responding to C's complaint. We upheld C's complaints.

Recommendations

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

• The council should ensure that a child's plan (or adoption support plan) includes details of difficulties that may emerge within the adoptive placement and strategies for the support of the child and of the adoptive parents should be built in from the outset of the new placement. Where possible, placements should be ended in a planned way unless there is significant unexpected risk to the child.
• The right of the adopter to request an assessment for an adoption support plan/formal review should be recognised.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should ensure that complaints are dealt with promptly and staff should be familiar with how to respond to a complaint under the appropriate 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 and B complained about the council's communication with them when they were arranging a placement for their child (A) at an independent school. A has additional support needs and the placement was arranged and funded by the council at C and B's request. C and B later became aware that the council had previously raised concerns about the school when they managed to obtain information through a Freedom of Information request.

C and B had raised several concerns about A's placement. They complained that the council were aware there were problems with the school before placing A there. As such, they felt the council should have shared these concerns with them so they could have made an informed choice about whether A should have been placed at the school. C and B were also dissatisfied with the council's response to their complaint and how the complaint was handled.

We found that it was not clear that the concerns raised by the council directly contributed, or were replicated in, the difficulties described by C and B in their complaint. However, in our view, it was reasonable to conclude that the concerns raised could have impacted A or the placement. We took into account the nature of the concerns the council raised about the school, the previous difficulties in sustaining an appropriate placement for A, and the challenging nature of the placement. After considering these factors, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to share their concerns about the school in some form with C and B at the outset of the process. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found failings in respect of timescales, communication and how the council addressed information provided by C and B. We concluded that the complaint handling aspect of the stage 2 investigation was not of a reasonable standard. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and B for unreasonably failing to appropriately share concerns they held about the school with them and for failing to handle their complaint reasonably. 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:

• When there are concerns about an independent school that could reasonably be anticipated to impact a child's placement, then appropriate information about these concerns should be shared with relevant parties, including the child's parents.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff dealing with complaints should be familiar with the council's Complaint Handling Procedure, understanding the importance of communication and the need to demonstrate thorough investigation of the points raised.

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

Mr C complained about the council's communication with him. Mr C owns a flat in a building in which the council owns another flat. Mr C arranged repairs due to rising damp in the property, and he complained that the council's communication with regard to their contribution to repairs was unreasonable. He felt the council did not make it clear what they would contribute to and how much; failed to ask for details at the beginning of the process that they later requested; and generally made the process complicated.

We found that much of the council's communication had been reasonable, however, we also found that there had been a delay in acknowledging one of Mr C's emails and that the council had failed to respond to Mr C within the timescale they had agreed to. We also found that at one stage, the council continually referred to requiring invoices when estimates had already been agreed as being sufficient, and that the council's position on betterment and the evidence needed from Mr C could have been clearer from the outset.

For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the delay in acknowledging his communication and that the response did not adhere to the timescales the council set themselves; the repeated references to requiring invoices when estimates had already been agreed as being sufficient; and the failure to make the council's position on betterment and the evidence required from Mr C clear from the outset. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Acknowledgements and responses to communication should be timely; where there is an unavoidable delay in providing a full response this should be explained to the service user.
• In similar circumstances, wherever possible, the obligations of the service user and the position of the council should be made clear from the outset.
• Where a position has previously been agreed, ongoing reference to the previous position should be avoided as this can be confusing.

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 applied for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund (SWF) at the council. C's application was refused and they submitted a first tier review request. The council partially changed their decision and awarded C some household goods. C complained that their application for a community care grant was not assessed reasonably in line with the SWF statutory guidance. C said that they had incurred rent arrears because their application was refused incorrectly at initial decision and they were unable to move into their new tenancy without the award of goods from the SWF.

We found that C's application was refused at initial decision as the council assessed that C had not signed for their tenancy. We found that the council had not followed the SWF guidance as they failed to give the applicant an opportunity to resolve any conflicts in evidence regarding whether they had signed for their tenancy or not. We further found that the council had a policy not to make awards in principle which was not in line with the statutory guidance, and we considered an award in principle should have been made in C's case. As a result, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to reasonably asses C's SWF application. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Calculate and reimburse C for rent arrears accrued from the earliest date they could have reasonably moved into the tenancy had an award in principle been made in line with the guidance, to the actual date of delivery of the full SWF award. The payment should be made by the date indicated: if payment is not made by that date, interest should be paid at the standard interest rate applied by the courts from that date to the date of payment.

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

• Applicants should be treated fairly and openly and understand what evidence they need to provide to support their application. It should be clear when they make their application if there is further information they need to provide. Applicants should be contacted when gathering information to have an opportunity to make their case. Where evidence is counting against their application, applicants should be told what it is and have an opportunity to explain further. Applications to the SWF should be assessed and decisions issued within the timescales set out in the regulations and the guidance. Decisions on first tier reviews where new information or a change of circumstances would cause the decision-maker to make an award should be made as soon as possible in line with sections 9.13 and 9.14 of the guidance.
• Guidance for decision-makers on SWF applications on making awards in principle should have regard to the statutory guidance.

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 has two children, one of whom attends nursery and the other attends primary school. C complained that the school failed to communicate with them appropriately about their children's poor attendance and that they failed to correctly implement and follow their attendance policy. The council provided details of the supports they put in place to manage the children's attendance.

We found that the school did not appear to have an up-to-date attendance policy in place as per the council's instructions. While the school took some appropriate action to address the children's poor attendance, some of these actions were delayed and were not documented. We also found that the school failed to respond to all of C's concerns in a timely manner, their communication with C overall was insufficient, and the council's response to C's complaint was inadequate as they failed to demonstrate that the attendance policy was followed, despite saying that it was. We upheld all of C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to correctly implement and comply with their attendance policy; to communicate reasonably with C regarding their children's attendance; and to fully investigate and respond to their complaint. 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:

• A communications policy should be developed which sets out reasonable timescales for responding to correspondence from parents. The council may wish to consider introducing an automated response acknowledging receipt of information.
• Relevant staff should reflect on this case and review their communication with C and identify where communication could have been improved.
• The council should review their attendance policy and ensure the school has its own individual policy; it should be made available on the school's website; parents should be notified of the policy; and school staff should be trained in the policy.
• The council should seek clarification, if this has not been done already, on the information that can be shared with parents.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• School staff should receive training on the council's complaint handling procedure, with a particular focus on identifying complaints and ensuring that evidence is provided to support their position.

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 school's handling of concerns they raised about the impact on their child of ongoing safety incidents within the classroom. C said they were not given clear information about the safety incidents, the applicable policy or the action being taken to address these, and the school did not put in place a risk assessment until after they complained. C also raised concerns about the school and the council's handling of their complaint.

The head teacher met with C to discuss the matter and upheld C's complaint. The school offered to put in place a number of measures aimed at supporting C's child, but did not share information on other action that had been, or was being, taken in response to their concerns, due to concerns about the confidentiality of other pupils. When C escalated the complaint to the second stage of the complaints procedure, the council investigated the school's handling of the complaint, and did not uphold C's concerns about this. The council also told C that no information would be shared about action taken in response to the safety concerns they had raised earlier, as this was confidential.

We found that the school should have taken action earlier in response to the safety concerns C raised (rather than waiting until C complained). We noted that the school had already apologised for this. We also found that the school should have kept C and other parents better informed about serious incidents affecting their children, in line with the school's policy on promoting positive behaviour. We upheld this complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council's response should have set out their position on the original complaint (not just the complaint handling), and the investigation should have involved checking relevant records, such as records of safety incidents and correspondence, and referred to the relevant policy. We upheld this complaint. However, we also noted some aspects of good practice in the council's response, and we fed these back to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not keeping them better informed about matters affecting their child's safety in the classroom, and for the failings in complaint handling. 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 school's Positive Behaviour Policy should include clear guidance for teachers on actions that should be taken to safeguard the safety and wellbeing of other children affected by behavioural incidents, and on communication with parents about this.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Stage 2 complaint responses should clearly reference the applicable policies or guidance and set out the organisation's final position on the original complaint (not just comment on the complaint handling).

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.