Local Government

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had breached National Care Standards by amending their policy in relation to foster carers’ ability to claim for travel expenses, and in relation to providing child care at training and consultation days. He also complained about the way the council had handled his complaints.

Mr C stated he was disadvantaged by the amendment to the foster carer’s allowance, which meant he could no longer claim for journeys of less than 50 miles. He felt that this expenditure should not come out of an allowance for an individual child, and that he was discriminated against as an individual who lived in a more remote location than other foster carers receiving the same allowance. He also explained the council had failed to provide child care at some training events, which made it more difficult for foster carers such as him to attend.

We did not uphold this complaint, although we criticised the council’s consultation process in relation to changing its policy about foster carers’ allowances. We found that the change did not breach the Standards and were within the council’s discretion. We also found that the council had apologised for failing to provide child care at training events, and did so at subsequent events.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint about the complaints handling process. We found there were lengthy delays in him receiving responses at some stages of the process, and that at one stage the complaint went back to someone who had dealt with it at an earlier stage. Mr C also had to request twice that his complaint be responded to by the Chief Executive as per the council’s procedure.

Recommendations
We recommend that the council:
• provide an apology to Mr C for failing to follow its complaints procedure adequately in relation to your complaints; and
• provide evidence of the new complaints handling process, and of staff training in relation to complaints handling.
 

Summary
Ms C was a council tenant from 2003 until 2010. Before she vacated the property, a housing officer carried out an inspection. Their written report noted there was writing on the walls in the bedrooms and poor décor in the stairway, but did not note any repairs to be carried out, or if any such repairs were to be the responsibility of the tenant or the council. The report was signed by the housing officer but not by Ms C.

After Ms C moved out, the council undertook a vacant house inspection which noted a number of repairs and cleaning jobs to be carried out. Ms C was initially charged around £1,700 for these, although the invoice was later reduced to just over £1,200. Ms C complained she had not been notified prior to leaving the property that there was repair work to be carried out and, therefore, had not had the opportunity to undertake the work prior to the council doing so. The council said that Ms C had been aware of her obligations as tenant through her tenancy agreement, and the 'Vacating Your Tenancy' booklet that was given to her at the inspection. We, however, upheld this complaint given that Ms C had not signed the report, and that none of the repairs or cleaning subsequently charged had been noted on the report. We found that she had not had sufficient notification of or opportunity to undertake the repairs.

We did not uphold Ms C's second complaint that the council had not undertaken work she had requested during her tenancy. There was no evidence available to show that Ms C had made such requests. We also found it reasonable that the council chose to undertake repairs prior to a new tenant moving in, in order to bring the property up to a reasonable standard for re-let.

We upheld Ms C's final complaint that the council failed to provide details about the two invoices issued. We found the information provided to be unclear and, on two occasions, erroneous. The council provided further information to us about what the remaining charges were for, and we relayed this information to Ms C.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• provide a full apology to Ms C for charging the works to her without properly advising her of the repairs and cleaning to be undertaken at the property; and
• consider waiving the remaining outstanding charges for the work subsequently undertaken at the property.
 

Summary
Since 2010 Mrs C has been concerned about the damage caused to the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links, a public parkland area in Edinburgh, by the use of barbecues. Mrs C has also been concerned about the health and safety implications of the use of barbecues and the disposal of resultant waste, including disposable barbecue trays.

Mrs C corresponded with the council about these concerns, given that the council's Management Rules for Public Parks prohibit the lighting of fires or barbecues without the council's written permission. In 2010 the council implemented a trial scheme to allow barbecues to be used in the park on concrete slabs installed for that purpose. This trial was again implemented in 2011. Mrs C did not feel this improved the situation and lodged a formal complaint in August 2011 that the council were not implementing their Management Rules for Public Parks.

In their response to Mrs C's complaints the council told her that the trial scheme would be reviewed and outlined various actions they would take to manage the situation over the remainder of summer 2011. Mrs C was dissatisfied with their response and raised her complaints with us. We decided that the council's actions had taken into account rule 7 of the Management Rules for Public Parks, which allowed the council to waive any rule at any time and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that he moved into a flat, unaware that council tax was not included in the rent. He only discovered this when a third party moved in. The council negotiated with Mr C on ways to recover his unpaid council tax, but this was unsuccessful.

We found that Mr C had been given correct information and guidance from the council (which took account of Mr C's specific situation) and that they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold his complaint that the council failed to provide consistent advice on his options to repay his council tax arrears. Neither did we uphold his complaints that the council sent him arrears letters when a repayment plan had been agreed, given that such letters are computer generated when arrears gather, or that the council failed to abide by an alleged agreement they would stop sending him council tax demand letters, as there was no evidence to support this.

Summary
Mr C had been a council tenant for three years. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to anti-social behaviour and that the council had failed to take effective action. As result of the antisocial behaviour he was forced to give up his tenancy in 2011 and he complained that the council had failed to take appropriate action at that time to meet his housing needs.

Our investigation found that during 2009 there had been faults in the council's handling of the matter. However, from December 2009 Mr C had made no further complaints until August 2010 and we found the council to have followed its policy in relation to Mr C's complaints from that period. In view of the faults identified during 2009, however, we upheld the complaint. We found that, when Mr C was forced to leave his tenancy in 2011, the council followed their policy and we did not uphold the complaint that they had failed to meet his housing needs.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in relation to their handling of the matter in 2009; and
• clarify whether the introduction section of the Edindex application form requires information on neighbour disputes or harassment to be passed to the Community Safety Team. If the information is not to be passed to any other section, the council should ensure that the application form is clear about the use of the information provided.
 

Summary
Mr A intended to use the Gourock to Kilcreggan ferry. When he arrived at the terminal it was clear that there was an issue with the operation of the ferry. He enquired about the ferry services for the rest of the day and was advised that the service had been cancelled for the day. As a result he shared a taxi with other passengers to complete his journey. He sought a refund of this expenditure from the ferry operator, Clyde Marine, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT), on whose behalf the service is operated.

He was advised that the service had not been cancelled for the day, but was suspended between 16:00 and 17:30 and that the final sailing of the day had gone ahead. In these circumstances neither Clyde Marine nor SPT felt it was appropriate to refund the costs of the taxi journey. SPT advised that their conditions of contract specifically removed them from liability in respect of loss arising for the failure to operate journeys and that their investigation had indicated that it had been staff employed by the operator of the pier facilities who had given Mr A the incorrect information about the cancellation of the services, as Mr A had stated in his first correspondence.

Mr A's MSP also complained to SPT about this matter, advising that Mr A had received the information about the cancellation of the service from a helpline operated by Clyde Marine. SPT advised that they had nothing further to add to their previous correspondence. Mr A's MSP raised the matter with the Ombudsman. We decided that as there was no firm, objective evidence of what information Mr A had been given or who by, there would be no practical outcome in our pursuing the matter further. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C's complaint arose from the financial assessment carried out by the council under the Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidelines after his elderly mother (Mrs A) required to enter a care home. The situation was complicated by the fact that Mr C's daughter and grandchild had previously moved in with Mrs A. The council changed their view on the arrangement, to Mrs A's financial disadvantage, and Mr C complained to the SPSO.

When we got in touch with the council about Mr C's complaints, they asked for the opportunity that the matter be fully pursued through the social work complaints procedures. This took some time, but the recommendations of the complaints review committee were accepted by the relevant council committee and resulted in a full and positive outcome. Although not all of the eight matters that Mr C had asked us to look at were considered in the social work complaints procedures, in light of the satisfactory conclusion achieved we decided that in the circumstances it would not be proportionate to pursue the matter any further.
 

Summary
Mr C's daughter attends a school within the authority of the council. She was experiencing bullying at school, which was having a serious emotional impact upon her. Mr C was concerned that this was affecting his daughter's health and progress at school. He complained that the school did not operate an anti-bullying policy, that it had failed to investigate his complaints about bullying appropriately, and that the council had not followed its complaints procedure when investigating his complaints.

We upheld the complaints in relation to the anti-bullying policy. The school had followed a council-wide policy prior to June 2011, but had not implemented a stand alone policy as recommended within the council-wide policy. We found that until then the school had not in fact had a clear policy about how reports of bullying would be dealt with, or what outcomes and resolutions were to be aimed for. As, however, the school had demonstrated they had introduced an anti-bullying policy in June 2011, we recommended that the council provide evidence that this policy had been implemented and promoted to all pupils and staff at the school.

We did not uphold the complaint in relation to the investigations of bullying. We found that overall the school had taken appropriate steps to investigate incidents, that there had been an appropriate level of enquiry into allegations about other pupils, and also in relation to allegations of harassment by some of the teachers at the school.

We did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to follow its complaints procedure. We found that, although Mr C did not receive a response within the stated timescale at Stage 2 of the procedure, the reason for this was acceptable, as a thorough investigation was being conducted which included the interviewing of all parties involved, and given the complex issues raised which dated back over more than a year. We also found Mr C received responses from appropriate people in the council at both Stages 2 and 3 of the complaints procedure.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• provide evidence that the school's anti-bullying policy introduced in June 2011 has been implemented and promoted to pupils and staff there.
 

Summary
Mr C was the chairman of the board of governors of a registered charity involved in drug rehabilitation. He believed the charity had exemption from paying council tax because of its charitable status and because it refers to a house of multiple occupation. He was unhappy that, as a result of non-payment of council tax, the council passed the arrears to sheriff officers for recovery.

We found that the relevant legislation in this matter was The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). On examining the legislation we established that it refers to unoccupied dwellings and, therefore, the charity could not be considered to be exempt. We found that the council acted correctly in telling the charity that they were not exempt.
 

Summary
Mr C complained to us about how the council have dealt with delay by a developer in forming a new access road and approving a landscaping scheme for a farm development.

The council refused an application by a developer for planning permission for the erection of new agricultural buildings, the repositioning of some existing agricultural buildings and the formation of a new farm access road. The developer appealed to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The appeal was successful, and planning permission was granted subject to several conditions, a number of which related to the formation of a new access road and a landscaping scheme.

Although the new farm complex has been implemented and is now operational neither the new access road nor the landscaping scheme has been completed. Mr C complained that as a result of this, traffic and heavy lorries access the farm using the road which runs in front of a row of former farm cottages where he resides.

Our investigation found that the council are limited in any action they can take to ensure that the developer implements these conditions, because of limitations of the wording of the conditions imposed by the DPEA Reporter, which are ineffective. There was, therefore, no evidence of failings on the part of the council in relation to the matters complained about. However, we have brought our findings on the complaint to the attention of the DPEA, so that they may take account of this when framing conditions in future.