Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been properly investigated by the school they attended. They felt their child had been made to feel that they were at fault and that in respect of two separate incidents, the school's investigation had been inadequate and had failed to follow the correct procedure. Mr and Mrs C also felt their complaint to the council about this had not been properly investigated and there had been no meaningful scrutiny of the school's actions.

It was explained to Mr and Mrs C that we could not re-investigate the claims of bullying, or determine whether bullying had taken place. We could look at whether the correct procedures were followed by the school and subsequently the council in response to the concerns Mr and Mrs C had raised.

We found that there was a clear record of Mr and Mrs C's reports of incidents of bullying. The school had 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 found that the council's investigation had considered all the available evidence and that the decision it had reached was reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold either complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her adult son (Mr A) regarding two specific matters. The first concerned child protection procedures that been instigated following concerns for children in Ms C's care. Ms C complained that the council unreasonably requested a police report on Mr A. The guidance for the protection of children in Scotland means that it was reasonable for the social work department, as lead agency, to request any police check on an adult in Ms C's home, given the information that had been reported to them by the children's school. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that there was a failure to document the basis on which a police report was requested. Section 91 of the Child Protection guidance states that when information is shared, a record should be made stating the purpose and form in which the sharing occurred. The social work records did not contain any information on why the request was made and we considered this to be unreasonable. The police request was in a standard form but it did not include parameters on the request limited to the alleged incident and we considered that it would have been reasonable to expect that this information should have been documented. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

The second matter related to communication and access to social work services. Ms C complained that, despite being advised Mr A had a new social worker, there was a failure to advise Mr A of their name. Mr A was not transferred to adult services and therefore he would not have a named social worker. Mr A was not made aware of this and he was under the impression he would have access to a named social worker rather than the duty social worker. We found there was an unreasonable failure to communicate this. On balance, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that there was a failure to refer to adult services and carry out an assessment for Self-Directed Support, despite stating this would be done. The decision not to refer Mr A to adult services under the children with disabilities and adult services transition arrangements was reasonable; however, the failure to document and explain this to Mr A was unreasonable. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A for (1) failing to document why the police report was requested in the social work records and failing to ensure the actual request was confined to parameters relevant to the alleged incident; (2) failing to advise Mr A how he could access social services and providing him with incorrect information that he had been allocated a new social worker when this was not the case; (3) failing to document an assessment which showed that Mr A did not meet the criteria for transfer to adult services and assessment for Self-Directed Support, and advising Mr A that he would receive an assessment by adult services including a Self-Directed Support assessment when this was not the case; and (4) failure to confirm to Mr A that he was not eligible to transfer to adult services and why he did not meet the criteria for referral to adult services under transition arrangements. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Clarify how long the 2.5 hours per week provided to Mr A will be funded by children's services and how this is being monitored and reviewed. Clarify with Mr A how he can continue to access this service at present.
• Provide Mr A with details of how he can access an adult services assessment by self-referral so that it can be determined whether the council has an obligation to meet eligible needs.

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

• Ensure there is a clear transition process between children with disabilities and adult services. This should include information for families of children with disabilities telling them how they can access adult services. This should include what the process is, how decisions are made and how they are communicated with families and who the contact point is.
• Ensure assessments are adequately recorded on social work files.
• Ensure contemporaneous notes are recorded on social work files documenting why child protection concerns have been raised and reasons for seeking information from the police.

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 had concerns in relation to changes to the recycling system introduced by the council. Ms C told the council that she had a disability and needed reasonable adjustments in relation to the recycling system. The council took steps to visit Ms C and explain the changes to the system. Ms C remained unhappy and complained to the council. Her complaint was not upheld and the council concluded that there was no failure to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Ms C was dissatisfied with this response and brought her complaint to us.

Ms C complained that the council failed to consider her request for reasonable adjustments appropriately. Although we noted that council officers had attempted to assist and engage with Ms C, it was not apparent from the evidence available that the council had appropriately taken into account how Ms C's disability impacted on her ability to use the recycling system. We did not find evidence that the council considered the adjustments in a systematic way. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council had not carried out an appropriate equality impact assessment in relation to the changes to the recycling system. We found that the council had performed equality impact scoping exercises at two stages during the implementation of changes to the recycling system. These assessments did not identify that the proposals would result in negative impacts on people with disabilities. We found that the council has acted in accordance with their guidance in relation to equality impact assessments. While we did not identify failings, we suggested that the council may wish to review their assessments in light of the evidence about Ms C's experience of the recycling system. We did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to appropriately consider making reasonable adjustments. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Contact Ms C to seek further information about how her disability impacts upon her capacity to use the recycling system. Refer to the Equality Act 2010 Statutory Code of Practice Services, public functions and associations (2011) and reconsider whether or what reasonable adjustments can be made. Inform Ms C of their decision and provide reasons.

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

• Officers should be aware of the duty to consider reasonable adjustments. Evidence of this consideration should be 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

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a new development. Mr C said that the council did not undertake an independent transport assessment, and did not fully take into account the numerous objections raised, particularly about traffic and road safety. Mr C said that the council used the wrong guidance in assessing the traffic capacity of the road, and did not take into account relevant Scottish Government policy.

The council said that the consultation responses were considered in detail in the report of handling, and they also met with objectors (including Mr C) to discuss his concerns. They said that the relevant policies had been taken into account, and the guidance used to assess road capacity was appropriate.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found evidence that the written consultation responses had been taken into account, and objectors (including Mr C) also had the opportunity to speak to the planning committee who made the decision. We considered that the guidance used to assess traffic capacity was appropriate, and there was evidence that the council had also taken into account relevant Scottish Government policy. While the transport assessment was carried out by the developer (not the council), this is standard practice, and the council had agreed the scope and reviewed the result. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

C and their partner became kinship carers to their grandchild when the child's parent died. C complained that the social work department failed to provide the appropriate information and advice regarding kinship care payments. The council advised that C did not meet the criteria for kinship care assistance as set out in the Scottish Government's guidance.

We found that the council had fulfilled their obligations. They had given the correct advice about C's eligibility for kinship care payments each time C was in contact with them. We found that the council had provided C with adequate information and support in respect of their grandchild's kinship care. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C raised child protection concerns in respect of their child (A) with the emergency social work team. C was concerned about the contact A had with their other parent's partner. The council investigated C's concerns and advised that the nature of the allegations did not reach the threshold of significant harm and that they found no evidence that A was at risk of harm. C complained that the council did not follow their child protection procedures and that they failed to safeguard A.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the council made the appropriate enquiries, and carried out a risk assessment, to reasonably conclude that A was not at risk of harm. We concluded that there was no evidence that the council failed to appropriately respond to the child protection concerns raised. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the actions of the council. Her grandchild (Child A) had been placed in a kinship care arrangement with their maternal aunt (Mrs C's daughter) and uncle. Child A's father requested that he be allowed full-time care of the child.

A number of assessment were undertaken by the council which resulted in a Safeguarder (someone appointed by a children's hearing to help them make the best decisions for a child or young person) being appointed to gather more information. The Safeguarder issued their report and recommended that Child A be returned to the full-time care of their father. As part of the Safeguarder's investigation, they interviewed a social worker involved in the case. In response to the Safeguarder's questions, the social worker highlighted some concerns about the kinship care placement and the involvement of Child A's maternal family. Mrs C states that she and her family were unaware of these concerns until the Safeguarder's report was issued. Mrs C complained that the council should have raised these concerns directly with the family to allow them to act on them.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We concluded that, regardless of the council's general impression that the kinship carers and maternal family were providing good care, any concerns or issues should be discussed openly and transparently. We also raised concern about the council cancelling and then failing to rearrange appropriate reviews.

We did not consider that the areas the social worker highlighted to the Safeguarder to be minor or insignificant. Therefore, regardless of where Child A's future place of residence would be, it would have been beneficial to discuss these matters openly with the kinship carers and maternal family at the time. This would have meant they could take steps to address any concerns and, if necessary, work with the council to ensure appropriate support was in place. We also recognised that the council's failure to schedule reviews within an appropriate timescale could have contributed to relevant information or concerns not being shared in a timely manner. In light of this, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C and the kinship carers for failing to act on or share concerns that were later discussed with a Safeguarder. 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:

• Families involved in kinship care placements should be provided with relevant information regarding any concerns the council has about the placement.
• If there are difficulties in the relationship between the social work department and a service user, appropriate steps should be taken to resolve these difficulties where possible. This includes ensuring appropriate reviews are held within reasonable time.

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

Land adjacent to C's property was used as the site compound during road construction carried out by contractors on behalf of the council. The compound was accessed by a temporary haul road which ran close to C's home. Construction vehicles used the road daily and vibration equipment was used to keep the road surface smooth.

After cracks developed on the façade of C's property and some of their neighbours' properties, C complained to the council about structural damage they believed was caused by the works. They also complained that the council's Environmental Health Officer (EHO) failed to return calls when C had left voicemail messages asking them to come and measure noise, dust and vibration levels.

C complained that a dilapidation survey should have been carried out by the council. We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We found that the road was constructed in accordance with the approved planning application. The council had taken appropriate action to address C's concerns over potential structural damage by conducting a survey of C's property (and neighbouring properties). We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to whether the council took reasonable steps to investigate C's complaints of vibration, noise and pollution, we took independent advice from an environmental health specialist. We found that the EHO initially took appropriate action. They attended C's property and then contacted the contractor, advising them of the relevant procedure. They closed the complaint when C made no request for monitoring, giving C their number to contact should C change their mind. Although it was C's position that they had left a number of messages for the EHO, there was no available evidence to indicate that further complaints were raised with the EHO. We did find, however, that the council team responsible for delivery of the road construction project were aware of C's concerns about noise, dust and vibration and ought to have passed these on to the EHO for action to be taken. On the basis that they failed to do so, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to take reasonable steps to investigate their complaints of vibration, noise and pollution, and for failing to oblige the contractor to provide evidence that levels were acceptable. 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:

• Council officers should ensure communication takes place between departments to relay complaints to the relevant service.

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 had failed to reasonably administer their council tax account. They complained that the council had failed to keep accurate records of payments made to them. The council appointed sheriff officers to recover council tax debt. C complained that the council's failure to keep accurate records had resulted in sheriff officers trying to recover more debt than was due.

We found that the council had kept accurate records and had taken enforcement action appropriately when C failed to keep up with regular payments of a satisfactory amount. We did not uphold the complaint.

However, during our investigation we identified that the council did not make it clear to C at which stage of the complaints process they were considering C's complaint. We therefore made a recommendation under section 16G of the SPSO Act 2002, which requires the Ombudsman to monitor and promote best practice in relation to complaints handling.

Recommendations

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Council staff should be familiar with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and ensure complainants are made aware of which stage their complaints are at.

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 to the council for a disabled parking badge. After waiting a period of time for the badge to arrive, they contacted the council to advise they had not yet received it. The council agreed to send C a replacement badge. C received a badge in the post and proceeded to use it, understanding this was the replacement badge.

C received two penalty charge notices from another council while they were parked and displaying their badge in that council area. The badge had a valid date. The penalty charge notices stated the reason for issue as 'parking in a restricted street where restrictions are in force'. C's car was impounded a few days later and they were advised by the other council that this was because they had been displaying a cancelled badge. The badge C understood to be the replacement badge was in fact the original badge which the council had cancelled after C reported that they had not received it.

C complained that they had no way of knowing they had been using a cancelled badge. C believed they should be reimbursed for the sums they had been fined, and for additional costs they had incurred as a consequence of using the badge, including taxis to and from work while waiting for a new badge to arrive.

We found that this situation could have been avoided if the council had been explicit about the number of the badge they were cancelling and the number of the replacement badge they were sending. There was no evidence that C was made aware or could have had any awareness that the badge they were using was cancelled. We considered that the administration of the badge was unreasonable and we therefore upheld this complaint.

C also complained that the council's handling of their complaint was unreasonable. We found that the council had failed to follow the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in complaints handling, including delays and failure to follow stages one and two of the process. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to C for the failings we have identified, with a recognition of the impact on them. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Revisit C's claim for compensation and consider offering some financial redress in light of the failings identified by this investigation.

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

• The council's processes are improved so that in the event of a badge being cancelled the applicant is made aware of the number of the badge that has been cancelled and the number of the replacement badge.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff in the Blue Badge Team are familiar with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and follow the two-stage process without delay.

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.