Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained about the service provided by the council after her property sustained water ingress from a nearby mains water pipe. The pipe was located under a council owned footpath and fed a nearby property. Scottish Water was unable to assist in the circumstances and so the council undertook to investigate the leak. Subsequently, a contractor appointed by the council excavated the footpath and fixed the leaking pipe. Initially, the water ingress into Ms C's property ceased. However, a short time later Ms C contacted the council to advise of a reoccurrence of the water ingress. The council did not accept Ms C's position that the work carried out by their contractor had caused the further ingress and decided not to undertake further work on the pipe. Ms C was unhappy with the way the council had dealt with the leaking pipe.

We found no evidence that these repairs were inspected by the council prior to or at completion to ensure that they were carried out to a satisfactory standard. We concluded that there was a lack of appropriate oversight over the works and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also had concerns about the way the council handled her correspondence and complaints. The council acknowledged to Ms C that they had not responded to a number of her letters, yet we found that they did not adequately establish the reasons as to why this happened. While other aspects of the council's complaint handling were satisfactory, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the failings identified. 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 clear specification of works should be provided to contractors acting on behalf of the council and, where appropriate, inspections should be performed to ensure work is carried out to an appropriate standard. Any inspection should be documented.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Where resolution is not possible, an investigation should provide a customer with a full, objective and proportionate response that represents the council's final 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

Mr C complained that the council had failed to produce accurate reports for various planning applications. He also believed that officers had made mistakes whilst exercising their delegated authority. Mr C was also concerned the council had not followed the correct procedures for their planning committee. He said that the council's response to his complaint had been based on a report prepared by a firm of lawyers which had not responded to all the issues he had raised, or recognised matters which Mr C considered were an established matter of fact.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council's approach had been confusing at times and was poorly worded. We noted that this had led to delays in the planning process; however, it had not materially affected the decision reached by the planning committee. We found that although there was disagreement between some of the council officers consulted and the planning officers who had reached the delegated decisions, the decisions themselves represented the reasonable exercising of professional judgement by the planning officers.

We also found that there was no maladministration in the planning committee's adherence to the council's Standing Orders and Scheme of Administration. However, we did note that the documents were confusing. The council had recognised the wording of the Scheme of Administration around site visits and voting was unclear. They had already agreed to take steps to address this.

We also found that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's complaints by commissioning an investigation by an external law firm. Although this had not answered each point raised by Mr C, we found that it had provided a reasonable response, which had addressed his underlying concerns. We did not, therefore, uphold any of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the actions taken by the council following their child's (Child A) disclosure that they had been inappropriately touched by another pupil. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council's education service had not reasonably followed their own procedures to safeguard their child.

We found that the education service had acted in accordance with their policy and guidance by discussing the matter with Child A and making a referral to social work. In the circumstances, we found that the steps taken by the school to safeguard Child A were a discretionary matter for the council's education service to determine and we were satisfied that the matter was appropriately considered and a number of measures were put in place. We did not consider that there was an obligation for the council to exclude the other child involved from school. In light of this, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint about the council's education service.

Mr and Mrs C also complained that the council's social work service failed to provide them with reasonable support. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that reasonable action had been taken by social work, including an assessment of the situation and contact with the school, the police and the families involved. We did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint regarding the action taken by social work.

Lastly, Mr and Mrs C complained about how the council had handled their complaints. We found that there was a delay in responding to the complaint made on their behalf by an MSP and that they were not kept updated on the progress of their complaint or provided with a revised timescale for the response. We also found that the council's responses did not address all the concerns Mr and Mrs C raised. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the delay in responding to the complaint made on their behalf by an MSP and that they were not kept updated on the progress of their complaint or provided with a revised timescale for the response. The council should also apologise for their responses not addressing all the concerns raised. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure (MCHP). The MCHP and guidance can be found here: https://www.spso.org.uk/how-to-handle-complaints.

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, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of his clients (Mr and Mrs A). Due to long-standing conditions, Mrs A was deemed to require personal care and had received self-directed support payments in order to employ a personal assistant (PA). Mr A also had personal care needs and the couple identified a PA who would be able to provide the required care for them both.

Mr and Mrs A, along with Mr C, met with a social worker to discuss how to get the necessary care in place. Mr C stated that the social worker told Mr A that he would be financially assessed and it was likely that he would have to make little or no contribution towards his care. In addition to this, Mr C stated that Mrs A was told that Mr A's assessment and support would not affect her.

After this meeting, Mr and Mrs A started using the services of the PA whilst the council's financial assessment process was ongoing. Later, the council sent Mr and Mrs A separate letters advising that they had to make a financial contribution of £49.98 per week each towards their respective care. In addition to this, the council advised Mr and Mrs A that they had incurred a debt of around £2000 for the care already provided.

Mr C complained about the council's financial assessment process and the information that was provided to Mr and Mrs A. In his view, the council did not provide Mr and Mrs A with appropriate information, and this contributed to them incurring a significant and unexpected debt.

We took independent advice from social worker. We concluded that the financial assessments had been carried out appropriately and in line with the relevant guidance at the time. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In respect of the information provided to Mr and Mrs A, we concluded that the council did not provide appropriate information about how they would be jointly financially assessed. When reviewing the evidence, we placed particular weight on the social worker's statement which was contained in the council's investigation report. In their statement, the social worker confirmed that they were not aware Mr and Mrs A would be financially assessed as a couple. This meant that they did not have accurate information in order to make an informed decision about the care they received. In addition to this, we took the view that the council's standard documentation could have detailed how people would be financially assessed in a clearer fashion. In light of this, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs A for failing to provide accurate and appropriate information about how Mr and Mrs A would be financially assessed in respect of their personal care. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• In light of the failings identified, the council should revisit their decision not to waive (either in full or in part) Mr and Mrs A's debt. The council should provide an explanation and rationale for their decision to both the SPSO and to Mr and Mrs A.

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

• Relevant social work staff should be fully aware of the council's Non-Residential Community Care Charging Policy and Procedure.
• Standard paperwork included in the Non-Residential Community Care financial assessment should clearly detail the process and potential charges involved.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• If a failing is identified as part of a complaint investigation, this should be acknowledged and addressed in the stage two response.

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 agreements between them and the school their child (A) attended had been repeatedly broken. In addition, C's spouse had been initially prevented from attending a meeting about A, due to an objection from A's other parent. C believed it was unreasonable for the school to have informed A's other parent that their spouse would be attending. C was also unhappy with the council's investigation into the complaints they made about these issues. Although some of their complaints had been upheld, C felt that the council had not investigated the issues properly and noted that the recommendations made following the investigation by the council had not been carried out.

We found that the school had failed to adhere to the agreements it had reached with C about A. We considered that the council's investigation was right to uphold C's complaints, but it had unreasonably concluded that the actions taken by the school were adequate, when they were not. We also found that the recommendations made by the council's investigation had not been carried out, which undermined the value of the apology they offered to C.

We found that the investigation into the meeting which C's spouse was initially barred from attending was unreasonable. In particular, the actions of school staff did not appear to be in line with Getting It Right For Every Child procedures. We also found that the council's investigation had unreasonably restricted the information that it was considering. Consequently, important aspects of the decision were overlooked, including the legal basis for the original decision to bar C's spouse from the meeting, which was the source of the complaint. We found, however, that given the passage of time a re-investigation of the complaint would not have been reasonable or proportionate. We upheld all of C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C, their spouse and A for the failures identified in this report. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint investigations should identify and pursue all relevant avenues of investigation.

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 was concerned about the support they received from the Children and Families Social Work Team regarding concerns about their child (Child A), particularly following Child A running away from the family home. We took independent social work advice. We found that:

social work did not act appropriately on a Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) referral from a GP;

no call was made to a neighbouring social work office to investigate Child A's living situation;

there was no closing summary to explain why it was considered appropriate to close the case to social work;

the social worker in training did not appear to have been regularly supervised by a manager; and

the council's own investigation did not identify the failings in the support provided to Ms C and Child A.

Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C and Child A for failing to provide reasonable support. 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:

• Closing summaries should be completed to explain why it is considered appropriate to close a case to social work.
• Social workers in training should receive regular supervision with a manager.
• When a GIRFEC referral is received, the GIRFEC practice model should be implemented and consideration should be given to holding a multi-agency meeting to assess the risk to the child and consider what level of help is required.
• Where a child refuses to return home and chooses to live elsewhere, reasonable efforts should be made to investigate the suitability of that living situation.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council's complaints handling system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified, and that it is using the learning from complaints to inform service development and improvement (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, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was a single parent who provided the majority of the care for their child (B). B had significant support needs and required 2:1 and sometimes 3:1 care. A employed an additional carer through B's Self Directed Support (SDS) allowance. A submitted a complaint to the council in relation to the support that they provided to help A care for B and for A's opportunities for respite.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that while the initial support provision for B was reasonable, when their hours of support were reduced there was a lack of transparency or reasonable explanation in the documentation for how the council came to the decision. This was unreasonable. There was also a lack of a Multi-Agency Action Planning Meetings (MAAPM) assessments until a considerable time after B moved into the council area. We found that the council failed to provide reasonable support to B. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Secondly, we found that more action should have been taken to look for appropriate respite care for B to allow A time away from their caring role. We found that it would have been reasonable for the council to have prioritised arranging further carer time. Overall, we found that the council failed to provide reasonable support to A as carer for B. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Decisions to change support packages should be transparent and justifiable.
• Reasonable actions should be taken to consider what options are available to allow A to receive respite away from their caring role.

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

• Information recorded should always be checked for accuracy.
• MAAPMs should be on a regular basis with specified formal review dates.
• There should be transparency in respect of the level of assessed need and changes to the package of care should be clearly explained and evidenced.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to take appropriate action in response to reports of bullying of their children (Child A and Child B) at primary school. C said that the reports of bullying were not investigated appropriately and the council denied that many of them occurred.

We considered both C's and the council's records of events, the school incident book, copies of emails between C and the council, and the school's anti-bullying policies. Whilst we recognised that the case was one that had been difficult for all involved, we found that the council had not always appropriately logged incidents in the incident book in line with their policy. We also found that on some occasions, though the school investigated incidents, they did not communicate with C regarding the investigations. Finally, we found that there appeared to have been several reports of incidents where there was no evidence they were investigated. On this basis, we were unable to conclude that the council had taken action in line with their anti-bullying policy and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained about the council's communication during the complaint process. Having reviewed the correspondence, we found that the council corresponded appropriately with C, and handled the complaints in line with the complaints process. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C, and Child A and B, for the failure to appropriately investigate and record allegations and incidents of bullying. 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:

• Allegations and incidents of bullying should be investigated and recorded in line with council policies.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the investigation of an alleged incident was not performed appropriately. C had been involved in the activities of a voluntary organisation which was commissioned to provide a service on behalf of the council. This organisation investigated the incident after C complained that a member of staff had lied about what happened.

We found that the organisation had provided an appropriately detailed statement of their reasons for not upholding C's complaint. Whilst C was unhappy that they were not interviewed as part of the process, we noted that there was no requirement for this under the complaint procedure and we did not find failings in this respect. We considered that the investigation was performed appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take appropriate planning enforcement action within a reasonable timescale in relation to work undertaken near his home.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there were failings in the enforcement process, including unreasonable delays and unexplained inaction at certain points. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably or appropriately to the concerns he raised about the work carried out. We found that the content of the council's responses to Mr C's enquiries were broadly reasonable and factual. However, we identified several examples of Mr C's correspondence not being responded to in a timely manner, or at all. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report. 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:

• Correspondence relating to planning enforcement matters should be responded to within a reasonable timescale.
• Enforcement action should be carried out in an efficient and timely manner, allowing for individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

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.