Local Government

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.

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.