Local Government

  • Case ref:
    201809868
  • Date:
    August 2020
  • Body:
    Glasgow City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Primary School

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.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201810025
  • Date:
    August 2020
  • Body:
    Fife Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Handling of application (complaints by opponents)

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.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201900330
  • Date:
    August 2020
  • Body:
    East Lothian Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour

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.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201903373
  • Date:
    August 2020
  • Body:
    Dundee City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Child protection

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.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201810430
  • Date:
    August 2020
  • Body:
    Dumfries and Galloway Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Primary School

Summary

C’s child (A) was involved in an incident with another pupil. C complained to the council about how the matter had been handled. They complained about the school’s actions once the incident was reported, the school’s failure to instigate child protection procedures or involve partner services, and about the lack of ongoing assistance and support to A following the incident.

The council concluded that the school’s actions on the day of the incident had been reasonable and that support measures were put in place within the school following the incident, but also that the school should have made more efforts to contact the Educational Psychology Service at an early stage. The council accepted that it would have been appropriate to contact the Safeguarding Manager after A had given further information about the incident. The council said that the school had taken steps to ensure these shortcomings would not be repeated in future, but also noted that it was not likely that different actions would have been taken in the event of earlier contact with the Educational Psychology Service and the Safeguarding Manager. C was dissatisfied with this response and brought their complaint to us.

We found that the council’s investigations of the incident were reasonable in light of the specific circumstances and the relevant policy, procedure and guidance. In reaching our conclusion we took into account that the council had accepted that the school should have sought advice from the Safeguarding Manager. In relation to communication, we found that the school shared accurate details of the incident, as were available to them at the time, when they initially contacted C. We also found that it was reasonable they did not invite C to meet with them at this point given the circumstances, and that the school were open with C about the measures they had taken, while sharing a reasonable amount of detail about these measures with C in the circumstances, and having regard to confidentiality considerations. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

In relation to the support provided to A, we found that the school took some reasonable steps to support A following the incident. However, we considered that they did not pursue their attempted contact of the Educational Psychology Service as persistently as would have been reasonable given the circumstances. As the council had recognised this as part of their investigation of C’s complaints and apologised for this, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint but did not make any further recommendations.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201707281
  • Date:
    August 2020
  • Body:
    The Moray Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Mrs A, about Moray Council (the Council) Children and Families social work department. Mrs A's two children, Child Y and Child Z, were removed from Mrs A's care in September 2016 as a result of a Child Protection Order (an emergency legal order granted by a Sheriff which allows the local authority to remove a child from their parent's care). Ms C complained that the Council unreasonably failed to gather and take into account relevant information when making decisions regarding the children's care and education, both before and after the children were removed from Mrs A's care and placed into accommodation.

During our investigation, we took independent advice from a social worker (the Adviser). We identified the following failings: 

  • Prior to the children being accommodated:
    • little or no evidence of exploring parenting style, family or other supports; or questioning and challenging what was observed;
    • little or no evidence of clear assessments of risk and need;
    • little evidence of the Getting It Right For Every Child practice model (GIRFEC; the Scottish Government's approach to supporting children and young people) being utilised, including a robust, multi-agency assessment; and
    • failure to make attempts to engage the family in supporting the prevention of a breakdown in the family or to provide kinship care as a means of preventing statutory care.
  • Following the children being accommodated:
    • failure to consider and arrange independent advocacy for the children in a timely manner; 
    • in the absence of independent advocacy, failure to explore ways of communicating with the children to elicit their views and feelings;
    • failure to include the views and feelings of the children in many reports;
    • failure to facilitate Child Y attending their hearings when Child Y voiced their wish to attend;
    • when Child Y changed their story about allegations made, it appeared that the allegations were given less weight and there was not enough understanding of the way in which children and young people may retract their stories. Rehabilitation with the children's father (Mr A) went ahead without this being resolved or there being more clarity on the risks and safeguards in place;
    • failure to reasonably consider and assess potential kinship placements and follow national guidance and legislation in relation to kinship care assessments;
    • failure to communicate in a reasonable and timely way with extended family in relation to kinship care;
    • no evidence that Child Z's views were obtained in relation to moving school; or that Child Z or the new school were prepared for the transition;
    • failure to promote or encourage extended family relationships;
    • failure to inform Mr & Mrs A of Child Z's admission to hospital shortly after they were accommodated; and
    • failure to complete a number of Looked After Child forms which should have been completed at the point of the children being accommodated, in a timely manner.

Given these numerous and significant failings, we upheld the complaint and made a number of recommendations to address these failings.

Ms C also complained that the Council failed to handle complaints raised by herself and Mrs A in a reasonable and timely manner. We acknowledged that the complaint was complex, involved correspondence from a number of different people, some of which had overlapping issues, and that there were concurrent information requests. The Council had taken some action to address their complaint handling failings. However, we considered that it remained that much of the handling of Ms C and Mrs A's complaints was unreasonable and we did not consider the action previously taken by the Council to address all of the complaint handling failings. We therefore upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

 

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman's recommendations are set out below:

What we are asking the Council to do for Ms C and Mrs A:

Rec. number

What we found

What the organisation should do

What we need to see
1.

Under complaint (a) we found that the Council unreasonably failed to gather and take into account relevant information when making decisions regarding the children's care and education. (The individual failings are listed below.)

Under complaint (b) we found that the Council failed to deal with complaints raised by Mrs A and Ms C in a reasonable and timeous manner

Apologise to Mrs A, Child Y and Child Z for the failure to reasonably gather and take into account relevant information when making decisions regarding the children's care and education.

Apologise to Mrs A and Ms C for the failure to reasonably and timeously respond to their complaints.

The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/informationleaflets

Copy or record of the apologies.

By: 16 September 2020

We are asking the Council to improve the way they do things:

Rec. number

What we found

Outcome needed

What we need to see
2.

Under complaint (a) we found that there was no clear use of the Getting It Right For Every Child practice model being applied (including appropriate multi-agency and risk assessments) when recording the concerns highlighted in the months prior to the children's admission to care; which would have assisted practitioners to identify the cumulative concerns and collated information from other agencies

 

The Council's child protection function should be delivered within the context of supporting families and meeting children's needs through the Getting It Right For Every Child practice model as stated in the National Guidance for Child Protection In Scotland and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014

 

 

Evidence that the findings of this investigation have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive manner that encourages learning.

Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to the Getting It Right For Every Child practice model and child protection. The Council may wish to consider using this case as a training tool.

Evidence that the Council have reviewed their Child Protection guidance to ensure it takes into account the Getting It Right For Every Child practice model and the relevant legislation in relation to supporting families and meeting children's needs.

By: 9 December 2020
3. Under complaint (a) we found that there was a failure to engage the extended family in supporting the prevention of a breakdown in the family or to provide kinship care as a means of preventing statutory care In line with the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Council should promote the upbringing of children by their families and the possibility of kinship care placements should be considered at the earliest opportunity and if this is not possible, the reasons should be recorded

Evidence that the findings of this investigation have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive manner that encourages learning.

Evidence that there is appropriate policy and guidance in place to ensure that the possibility of kinship care placements are considered at the earliest opportunity.

By: 9 December 2020
4. Under complaint (a) we found that there was both an absence and delay in properly seeking the views of the children, including by use of independent advocacy, and including these views in the relevant plans and paperwork The views of children should be sought in line with the Getting It Right For Every Child Framework and as laid down in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The views of children should be listened to, considered and recorded; and independent advocacy should be considered for children in a timely manner

Evidence that social workers have been reminded of the importance of recording children's views appropriately and considering the use of independent advocacy.

Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to seeking and including children's views.

Evidence of an audit being carried out of Looked After Child and Child Protection paperwork, and Child's Plans, to ensure that children's views are being sought and included appropriately.

By: 9 December 2020
5. Under complaint (a) we found that there was a failure to facilitate Child Y attending their hearings when Child Y voiced their wish to attend If a child expresses a wish to attend their Children's Hearing, they should be facilitated to attend, regardless of whether they have previously been excused; in line with national guidance

Evidence that social workers have been reminded of a child's absolute right to attend their hearings; and of their responsibility to facilitate this if a child has expressed a wish to attend.

Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for staff in relation to their responsibilities to facilitate children to attend their hearings.

By: 9 December 2020
6. Under complaint (a) we found that the timescales to complete the kinship care assessments were considerably outwith the recommended timescales laid down by the statutory guidance Timescales for kinship care assessments should be in line with the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and the Adoption (Scotland) Act 2007 - Part 9 Kinship Care unless the reasons as to why this is not possible are specifically recorded

Evidence that the Council's policy and procedures on kinship care assessments are in line with the timescales in statutory guidance.

Evidence that social work staff at the Council have been reminded of the guidance in relation to kinship care assessments.

Evidence that there is a system in place to monitor timescales for kinship care assessment and management action taken to address when timescales are not being adhered to.

By: 9 December 2020
7. Under complaint (a) we found that communication with the extended family regarding consideration and assessment of kinship care placements was delayed, unclear, and not proactive Communication with extended family in relation to potential kinship care placements should be proactive, clear, and timely

Evidence that the findings of this investigation in relation to communication with extended family members have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive manner that encourages learning.

By: 9 December 2020
8. Under complaint (a) we found that Child Z moved school without any proper sharing of information and preparation and the decision was made outwith a Looked After Child review and prior to a Children's Hearing, without reasonable evidence that this was warranted Prior to any decision that brings about a change to the child's plan, or before a decision to seek a Children's Hearing for a child whose supervision order they think should be varied or terminated, a Looked After Child review should be held

Evidence that social workers have been reminded that significant decisions concerning a child should not be made outwith a formal review.

Evidence of an audit to ensure Looked After Child reviews are being held appropriately.

By: 9 December 2020
9. Under complaint (a) we found that when Child Z moved school, the new school were not notified of the background and did not learn of the involvement of other agencies until they received the child's educational file some time later When a child who has social work involvement moves school, the new school should be informed of this in a timely manner in line with the Getting It Right For Every Child national framework principles of working collaboratively with the child at the centre

Evidence that the findings of this investigation in relation to the Getting It Right For Every Child national framework principles of working collaboratively with the child at the centre have been fed back to the relevant staff in a supportive manner which encourages learning.

By: 9 December 2020
10. Under complaint (a) we found that the records evidence that the attitude of social work was at times judgemental and based on pejorative personal opinions Social workers should avoid making statements based on assumptions and pejorative personal opinion

Evidence that the findings of this investigation in relation to record-keeping and attitude towards families have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive manner that encourages learning.

By: 9 December 2020
11. Under complaint (a) we found that the parents were not notified that their child was admitted to hospital despite still having parental responsibilities and rights Parents with parental rights and responsibilities should, as far as possible, be consulted prior to medical treatment or in cases of an emergency admission be notified as soon as possible, in line with the Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Evidence that social workers have been reminded of and understand their legal obligations in respect of children and parents.

By: 9 December 2020
12. Under complaint (a) we found that although Child Z moved to a new local authority area, a letter to the authority informing them that Child Z was living there and requesting a transfer Child Protection Case Conference was not sent until three weeks after they moved. This was outwith guidance and also caused the receiving local authority to be outwith the timeframe for holding the Child Protection Case Conference The Council should adhere to the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland in relation to notifying the receiving local authority immediately when children and/or their family move

Evidence that social workers have been reminded of their obligations under the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland.

Evidence that the Council's procedures and guidelines meet the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland standards.

By: 9 December 2020
13. Under complaint (a) we found that Looked After Child forms, including a general medical consent form, were not completed at the point of admission to care and there was a delay of almost four weeks following accommodation The relevant Looked After Child forms, including general medical consent, should be completed at the point of a child being admitted to the care of the local authority, or in cases of emergency, as soon as is practicably possible after the child is placed; in line with The Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Evidence of an audit to ensure that Looked After Child forms are completed prior to or at the point of a child being accommodated.

By: 9 December 2020
14. Under complaint (a) we found that there were numerous and significant failings in relation to gathering and taking into account relevant information when making decisions regarding the children's care and education When making decisions regarding the care and education of children, the Council should appropriately gather and take into account relevant information

Evidence that the findings of this investigation have been reviewed in full by a senior member of staff at the Council and that they are satisfied that all failings have been addressed by the recommendations above or actions already taken by the Council. If they are not, an action plan should be devised to ensure that all issues are addressed appropriately and fully.

By: 9 December 2020

We are asking the Council to improve their complaints handling:

Rec. number

What we found

Outcome needed

What we need to see
15.

Under complaint (b) we found that there were serious and significant failures in relation to complaints handling

 

Complaints should be handled in line with the relevant complaint handling procedure

 

 

Evidence that the Council have carried out a review into the handling of this complaint, identified where improvement action (such as training) is required, and developed an action plan to improve complaint handling.

By: 9 December 2020

 

Feedback

Points to note

The Adviser noted that there was a regular programme of supervised contact with both parents, but commented that, in their view, the timetable of contact placed a heavy burden on the children as on occasion they were having two contact visits a day, one with each parent and some that included extended family. The Adviser acknowledged that it is always a difficult balance to ensure there is sufficient contact but also that it is relaxed and comfortable to promote a good experience and build relationships. However, they considered the contact plan, while demonstrating a regular arrangement, was a demanding one for everyone, not least the children. The Council may wish to reflect on this matter.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201808327
  • Date:
    July 2020
  • Body:
    Stirling Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    unauthorised developments: enforcement action/stop and discontinuation notices

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to act appropriately, impartially or in line with their obligations when carrying out enforcement action against them.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council took appropriate action at specific points in the course of the enforcement process and had acted impartially. However, we found that the enforcement process took an unreasonable length of time to reach a conclusion and that the council could have carried out a more thorough assessment of the situation at an earlier stage. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Mr and Mrs C also complained that the council had handled information provided by a third party inappropriately and placed an unreasonable amount of weight on it. We concluded that the evidence did not support Mr and Mrs C's view that the council considered information provided by a third party in an inappropriate or unreasonable manner. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had failed to provide a reasonable level of communication with them during the enforcement process. This includes failing to meet with them despite their requests. We found evidence of good communication at certain points during the enforcement process. However, there was also clear evidence of several of Mr and Mrs C's requests to meet not being acknowledged or followed up by the council. This directly contradicted the council's position that there had been no requests to meet made by Mr and Mrs C or their agent. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings that contributed to delays during the planning enforcement process and for not providing a reasonable level of communication at certain points, including failing to meet with Mr and Mrs C despite their requests. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
  • Mr and Mrs C have requested that the council reimburse them for the Planning Consultant fees incurred in respect of the period after they consider the enforcement notice to have been complied with. They have advised of the price and they can provide a copy of the invoice. The council should consider whether it is reasonable and appropriate to reimburse Mr and Mrs C for these costs. This is a decision for the council to make and they should advise Mr and Mrs C of the outcome.

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

  • Enforcement action should be carried out in an efficient and timely manner, allowing for individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Accurate assessments of the situation should be carried out at an early stage, allowing for individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
  • Correspondence relating to planning enforcement matters should be responded to within a reasonable timescale. If a meeting is requested, this should either be arranged or an explanation provided for why on is not necessary or 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.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201900196
  • Date:
    July 2020
  • Body:
    South Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    building warrants: certificates of completion / habitation

Summary

A number of years ago, Mr C bought a new build property from a housing developer. Mr C had work done to his property and the structural steel beams were exposed. Mr C was concerned that they did not have adequate fire protection and that the construction differed from the plans approved by the council.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to meet their obligations under the relevant building standards regulations by issuing a completion certificate for his property. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner.

We took independent advice from a building standards adviser. We found that it was appropriate that the council issued a completion certificate, as they took reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the mandatory building standards had been met. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner by providing technically detailed and competent information. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201900074
  • Date:
    July 2020
  • Body:
    Scottish Borders Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy / administration

Summary

Mr C was the owner of a property which included a parking space noted in the title deeds. Subsequently, Mr C installed a collapsible parking pole to prevent others parking in the space. The council issued a notice to Mr C requiring that he remove the parking pole. The council advised Mr C that the road had been adopted as a 'public road', which meant control of the road rested with the council. Mr C disputed the council's position and pointed towards the council's inability to provide a complete copy of a technical drawing which accompanied a road construction consent form. He considered that this meant that the council could not demonstrate that the parking space was part of the public road.

Mr C complained about the council's decision to require him to remove the parking pole. We found that the council has discretionary power to require removal of something placed in a public road causing obstruction. Mr C had not been granted consent in writing to install a parking pole in the parking space he owned. We found no maladministration in relation to the council's decision-making in this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained about the council's investigation into a missing technical drawing. We found that a black and white copy of the drawing was available and this had evidentiary value in the council confirming which areas were originally intended to form part of the adopted road. We also found that a separate document consisted in the main record for delineating adopted areas. We were satisfied that the steps taken by the council to search for the document were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201903686
  • Date:
    July 2020
  • Body:
    Renfrewshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    repairs and maintenance

Summary

C was a tenant of the council and requested repairs after reporting issues with damp, leaks and the boiler. When C ended the tenancy they were charged for leaving items in the property. C complained that the council's responses to C's requests for repairs, for recharging them when they left the property and how they communicated were unreasonable.

C reported 90 repairs or faults over a tenancy of many years. With the exception of two occasions, the council responded within timescales as laid out in their repairs policy. Sometimes the fault required multiple attendances (due to access requirements or parts required) and led to the completion time taking longer but the initial response was within the target timeframe. We found that the council's response to C's requests for repairs were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The council responded to C's complaints sometimes verbally, in writing or both. It was good practice to seek practical resolutions to complaints and the council made attempts to do this with bringing forward inspections and arranging tradespeople to attend C's property. We found that not all of the points C raised were responded to when they were first raised as a complaint, requiring C to raise the same point on multiple occasions and in some instances (such as the complaints about communication and previous faulty repairs) not being responded to at all. This was unreasonable.

After the council received C's complaints they responded at the frontline resolution stage five times. The council did not advise C on how they could escalate their complaint as part of these responses after it was clear that C remained dissatisfied. It was unreasonable that the council failed to advise them of how to escalate the complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Lastly, the council were clear in the information which they provided to C in the tenancy agreement and terminations, that there was a requirement that C remove all belongings from the property after their tenancy ended. Not doing so would result in C being charged by the council for the removal costs. The council followed their process and their actions were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for failing to respond to all of the complaints they raised. 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 advise complainants how to escalate their complaint if they remain dissatisfied.
  • The council should respond to all points of complaint raised by a complainant.

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.

Related reading

Subscribe to Local Government