Local Government

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf her daughter (Ms A) that Ms A had been unreasonably removed from the council's homeless waiting list for settled accommodation.

After Ms A had been placed on the waiting list, she accepted a private let outwith the council area but did not inform the council of her change in circumstances. Ms A and her family were later sent a provisional offer for settled accommodation, which Ms A accepted, however the council noted in the course of their pre-allocation checks that Ms A had taken up a private let and no longer met the homeless criteria. As a result, the council withdrew the offer and removed Ms A from the homeless waiting list.

We found that Ms A had signed an agreement to inform the council of any changes in circumstances, including a change of address, and she had not told the council that she had moved to a private let outwith the council area. Additionally, we found that in taking up the private let, she no longer met the criteria to be provided settled accommodation by the council and it was reasonable that the council removed her from the waiting list. As a result, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C's adult son (Mr A) has complex care needs and lives at home with her. Ms C complained that the council's care budget unreasonably relied on her being the second person providing him with care. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council had allocated Mr A a care budget, which was equal to the cost of commissioning him support, such as a placement at a residential home. We found that this approach was reasonable and it complied with the relevant statutory guidance. We found that if Ms C was unable to provide Mr A with care, it would have been necessary to consider changing how his care hours were spread during the week or consider a residential placement. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained about how the council responded to her enquiry about getting a different type of shower chair for Mr A. The council refused her request, as they said his current shower chair was meeting his clinical need. We took independent advice from an occupational therapist. We found that there was insufficient evidence that Mr A's current shower chair was meeting his clinical need and that Ms C was not clearly told the reasons for refusing her request. We considered that the council had not responded reasonably to Ms C's enquiry. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the issues we have identified in how the council responded to her enquiry about a shower chair for Mr A. 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:

• Service users should be appropriately assessed to ensure their current equipment is meeting their clinical need. Service users and/or their carers should be clearly told why any requests for equipment have been refused; and they should be given appropriate advice and follow-up. This should then be appropriately documented.

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

Ms C complained that the Council had unreasonably failed to assess her needs as a carer. She said that she had suffered considerable stress for over a year as a result of her caring role for her son (Mr A) who has a number of disabilities.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council’s delay in completing a carers assessment was unreasonable. In addition, the report lacked any analysis of need and recommendations. It was clear that over this period Ms C was finding the situation extremely challenging and was under considerable stress. In view of these failings, we upheld this complaint. The council had accepted there was a delay in completing the carers assessment and had apologised for this.

Ms C also complained that the council had failed to provide reasonable care to Mr A. In relation to this aspect of the complaint, we found that there were failings in relation to communication and a lack of evidence to show the reasoning around decision-making. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for these failings. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .
• Review Ms C’s carers assessment report in light of the findings of this investigation.

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

• There should be a clear summary of the council’s involvement and why a case is being closed to ensure that there is transparency and a clear understanding of the reasons for this action.
• Account should be taken of someone’s preferred means of communicating, unless there is a reason this is unreasonable or inappropriate.
• Assessments of this nature should set out the kind and/or level of support recommended or required.
• While there is no specific time frame for carrying out assessments, the progress of one should be monitored and addressed if it appears to be drifting and taking longer than anticipated, and action should be taken to correct this.

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

Ms C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a housing development adjacent to her property. Ms C complained that the council did not tell her about changes that had been made to the site plan and that she was not given a further opportunity to provide representations. Ms C also complained that when the building work started, the nearest house was significantly closer to her boundary than what the council had told her the separation distances would be.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council was not required to invite Ms C to make further representations on the planning application, as they did not consider the changes to the site plan had been significant. We noted that in their response to Ms C's complaint, the council acknowledged that they had told her the wrong separation distances. However, we also found that the council had relied upon these inaccurate separation distances in their assessment of the planning application. We considered the council's response to Ms C did not adequately acknowledge or address this. We also considered that their assessment did not contain enough detail about how they assessed the impact on Ms C's amenity. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the issues identified in the council's handling and assessment of the planning application. 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 ensure that any representations they receive about amenity are appropriately taken into account and addressed in their assessment.
• The council should ensure they have adequate checks in place to ensure that planning applications are accurately assessed and to avoid these types of factual errors in relation to the separation distances.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council's complaints handling system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are clearly acknowledged and addressed, and that they are using focused learning from complaints to inform service developments and improvements (where appropriate).

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 their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been addressed by the school they attended. C met with teaching staff to discuss the incidents giving rise to their complaints and subsequently attended a parent-teacher meeting. C complained that school staff had behaved unreasonably towards them, in particular at the parent-teacher meeting.

We explained to C that we could not determine whether bullying took place. We could look at whether the council took reasonable action after C reported their concerns and whether the school and the council followed the correct procedures in response to those concerns.

We found there was a clear record of C’s reports of incidents of bullying. The school has detailed the action it took to investigate the incidents and was able to provide evidence to support its decisions. This was in line with the council’s anti-bullying policy. We considered that the council handled C's complaints about bullying in a reasonable way.

In considering C’s complaint about how staff had behaved, we reviewed the evidence provided by C and the council. We did not find any supporting evidence to conclude that the school’s staff had behaved unreasonably towards C.

We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the handling of a planning application submitted by a neighbour. They complained that the council had failed to allow an additional neighbour notification to enable comments to be submitted on new additional information submitted by the applicant; the council unreasonably circulated a report of handling to the appropriate planning committee which was inaccurate, and that elected members of the committee were provided with misleading information. They also complained that the council failed to adhere to its planning residential amenity protection guidelines, and finally that the council’s communication concerning the planning application was unreasonable.

We took independent planning advice. We found that there had been no failure by the council in not providing an additional notification period as the further information provided by the applicant was not materially different from the information already provided. While we found that the report of handling was of an appropriate standard in this case, the council accepted that the information in the report of handling could have been clearer and had taken action to remind appropriate staff of the need for accuracy in reports of handling.

We also found that there was no evidence that misleading statements were provided to the committee and that there was evidence that amenity protection had been taken into consideration.

Finally, we found no evidence that the communication with Mr and Mrs C in relation to the planning application was unreasonable.

We were satisfied that the planning application had been dealt with appropriately and in accordance with relevant statutory and council processes and procedures.

Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A) that the council unreasonably issued Mr A with a third warning under the council’s anti-social behaviour policy following an altercation between Mr A and his neighbour. Mr A’s neighbour brought an anti-social behaviour complaint against Mr A, which was corroborated by an audio recording taken during the altercation.

Ms C complained that the council’s handling of the anti-social behaviour complaint against Mr A was unreasonable as they went straight to a third warning and should not have relied on the recording from the neighbour as evidence when investigating the neighbour’s complaint. We found that the council’s anti-social behaviour policy allows for escalation directly to a third warning, bypassing first and second warnings, in cases where an adult is involved in serious anti-social behaviour. We found that the council’s handling of the anti-social complaint made against Mr A was in line with their anti-social behaviour policy and as such did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that Mr A was inappropriately recorded by a council officer and was only made aware when it was referenced by the council in their complaint correspondence. We were unable to find, on the basis of the information and evidence available, that the recording was inappropriate and as such did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the council’s actions in response to a child protection concern about their child (A) particularly about information shared with the Police and the conduct of specific social workers. After C received a copy of the report relating to the child protection concern, they submitted a complaint. Remaining dissatisfied with the council’s response, C brought the complaint to our office.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, while the initial actions by the council in response to the child concern were reasonable, the council failed to reasonably gather and record information throughout the investigation, and in so doing failing to follow national guidance. There was no evidence that appropriate checks were made before A’s family member (B) became temporarily responsible for A’s welfare or that appropriate action was taken after C advised the council that A’s health was being impacted by the arrangement. There was no evidence that the council provided a reasonable rationale behind their decisions for this case or that relevant legislation was appropriately utilised, and records kept of the same. This was unreasonable and we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to B for failing to undertake reasonable action in relation to their role for caring for C’s child.
• Apologise to C for failing to reasonably respond to the child protection concern. 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:

• Child protection concerns are reasonably responded to.
• Decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of parents are clearly recorded, and reasons given why any particular legislation has been utilised, with the decision appropriately reviewed.
• Decisions relating to investigations of child protection concerns are supported by a reasonable rationale which is recorded appropriately.
• National guidance is followed when gathering and recording information in relation to child protection concerns.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints investigations should be thorough and identify any key failings that occurred.

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.