Local Government

  • Case ref:
    201806572
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    Falkirk Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    parking

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably installed bollards at the front of a block of flats. The council said this had been done to address inconsiderate parking due to concerns about emergency service vehicle access in the event of a major emergency. The bollards were locked in place, but keys had been provided to the ambulance service and fire service.

Mr C said that the keys were never used and that vulnerable residents were now having to walk a significant distance to access ambulances or taxis. Mr C also complained that the resident's association had not been consulted.

We found no evidence that the emergency services had raised specific concerns about the installation of the bollards or their use. The installation had been carried out under the council's permitted development rights and no planning permission was required. The council were, therefore, entitled to install the bollards.

The council were not obliged to consult with the residents' association. The council had acknowledged that it would have been courteous to inform the association of their intentions and had apologised for this, which was a reasonable and proportionate response to Mr C's concerns. We did not uphold this complaint.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201902610
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    East Lothian Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    primary school

Summary

C requested that their child (A) defer their entry to primary school. C also requested an additional year of early years funding for the nursery school A was attending. When C's application for funding was denied, they submitted an appeal which was also refused. C complained about the actions of the council in relation to the matter.

In relation to the consideration of the initial application for deferral and early years funding, we found that while there were elements of communication that could have been better, overall the actions of the council were reasonable. The deferral application process had an emphasis on the parent and nursery providing information and evidence to support the application. The council reasonably followed the appropriate process when considering the deferral application. We did not uphold the complaint.

On considering the complaint about the process regarding the appeal, we found that when the initial application for early years funding was denied there was no clear route of appeal. It would have been reasonable, and more in keeping with relevant guidance, to have a clear process set out for parents, at least from the point in time when they become aware their application was unsuccessful, including information about the evidence required to support their request.

In addition we found that the council's explanation of their decision lacked detail. To ensure the council were exercising their discretion appropriately, they should have clearly articulated what evidence they considered, their view on it and how they reached the conclusion they did. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for failing to follow an appropriate process when considering the appeal. 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:

  • Ensure current active information is available to parents both online and via nurseries about the deferral process and appeals process.

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:
    201807786
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    special educational needs - assessment & provision

Summary

C complained about a number of matters relating to the primary school education of their child (A).

C was firstly concerned about the way the school had handled their requests for A to receive educational support. We found that the school had arranged a number of assessments and also met C to discuss their concerns. We were satisfied that the school took into account the evidence available in reaching their view about whether A had support needs. We did not identify failings and we did not uphold this complaint.

C was also unhappy about the level of information provided in relation to applying to a specific secondary school. We concluded that it was more likely than not that C received the standard information issued to parents about the right to make a placing request and details on how to do this. We did not find evidence that C requested additional information and that the council had failed to respond. We did not uphold this complaint.

C further complained about the school contacting the social work service in relation to A. We considered the circumstances of the contact and the council's policy in relation to this. We did not conclude that the school acted inappropriately in the circumstances. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, C raised concern that a council officer provided them with inaccurate information about what would be discussed at a meeting. We did not find evidence that C was misinformed in relation to this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201807404
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    repairs and maintenance

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed unreasonably to respond to concerns she raised about the condition of the property and to carry out appropriate repairs to the property, after she took on the tenancy of the property from the council.

In relation to complaint (a), Ms C complained in particular about the council's response to her concerns about the condition of the bathroom and noise insulation. From the available evidence we were satisfied that Ms C had accepted the condition of the bathroom when she signed for the property. Nevertheless, it appeared that the council had carried out a number of general repairs to the bathroom and intended carrying out further repairs. We considered there was evidence that the council responded reasonably to Ms C's concerns about the condition of the bathroom.

Regarding Ms C's concern about noise insulation, we considered it was reasonable of the council to discuss this with Ms C as a noise complaint in the first instance, given that she had reported increasing noise from neighbours. We also noted that the council had provided Ms C with contact details if she wanted to pursue this further as a noise complaint. Having considered the matter carefully, we did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to complaint (b), Ms C's concerns related a number of issues including the property's central heating system and hot water, the bathroom and flooring. We were satisfied from the evidence available that the council had carried out reported repairs to the property in line with their repairs policy. In the circumstances, we did not uphold this complaint.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201807779
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    Dumfries and Galloway Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy / administration

Summary

C, an advice worker, complained about the council on behalf of their client (A). A's relative (B) was placed with them after difficulties in their parents' circumstances. It was initially agreed that a parenting assessment be carried out, which led to a joint care arrangement being agreed. However, an incident later in the year highlighted that it would not be suitable for this arrangement to continue. It was agreed at a Looked After Child Review that a kinship care assessment in respect of A assuming full time care of B should be progressed.

The initial kinship care assessment was not completed and there were delays before the assessment was re-started. This meant it took many months for A to be approved as a kinship carer. After C complained, the council agreed that kinship care assessments should be completed within twelve weeks and three days of the placement. However, in their view, the twelve weeks and three days should begin from the date it was agreed a kinship care assessment should be carried out. C complained to us as they did not agree with this position and felt the twelve weeks and three days should be taken from the date B was placed with them.

We independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council's decision to commence the kinship care assessment from the date it was agreed a kinship care assessment should be carried out was not supported by the relevant guidance and evidence. We considered it reasonable for the council to pursue a joint care arrangement with a view of eventually returning B to their parents' care. However, in our view, the council unreasonably failed to commit to a position in respect of A's kinship care status until the joint care arrangement became untenable. Based on the circumstances detailed in C's complaint, we concluded that A should have been assessed as a kinship carer from the date B was placed with A. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

C also complained that A was not aware B received Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which was being paid to the parents. The council explained that social work staff were not aware DLA was in payment. However, in C's view, the council should have been aware that B may be eligible for DLA and provided advice about this.

We found that social work staff would not receive automatic notification of what benefits someone is in receipt of. However, we concluded that an assessment of financial circumstances or potential eligibility for disability benefits did not appear to be built into the council's standard processes. Nor did these factors appear to be considered in light of the B's circumstances in this case. We concluded that this was not reasonable and opportunities to gather information about the family's financial circumstances and potential entitlement to disability were missed. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to A 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.
  • Calculate the amount of kinship allowance that would have been payable to A had a kinship care assessment commenced on the day B was placed with A. Make payment of this amount to A. The payment should be made by the date indicated: if payment is not made by that date, interest should be paid at the standard interest rate applied by the courts from that date to the date of payment. It is reasonable for the council to take into account payments already made under Section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

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

  • Kinship care assessments should commence from the appropriate date, in line with relevant guidance and legislation.
  • Relevant social work staff should be aware of when service users may be eligible for disability benefits and how to provide appropriate advice/signposting.
  • The council should have clear guidance on the interaction between joint care arrangements and kinship care placements. Relevant staff should be aware of this guidance.
  • Where appropriate, social work assessments should include consideration of the service user's financial circumstances and any potential eligibility to disability benefits.

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:
    201806149
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    Dumfries and Galloway Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy / administration

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning application reasonably. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, although there had been some minor errors in the information provided by the council to the planning committee, these had not had a material impact on the decisions reached. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly, and that whilst we recognised that Mr C was concerned and distressed about the handling of the planning application and the proposed development, his disagreement with the professional judgement of the council's planning officers was not evidence of maladministration. We did not uphold the complaint.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201807257
  • Date:
    June 2020
  • Body:
    Aberdeen City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy / administration

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable enforcement action over breaches of planning control by the operator of a café. Mrs C said that the council had been aware of these breaches for an extended period of time and that the breaches included a failure to comply with the conditions of the café's planning permission. Mrs C said this was unreasonable, and that the council had failed to respond adequately to her complaints.

We received independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had been aware of the breach of planning control for an extended period. The council had correctly stated they had a broad discretion to determine whether it was in the public interest to take enforcement action. However, we noted that there was no evidence of the enforcement investigations undertaken by the council, nor was there any evidence that they had assessed the progress being made by the café to regularise the planning situation. The council had, therefore, failed to comply with its own planning enforcement charter.

We found that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to record its planning enforcement activity. It had also failed to respond appropriately to Mrs C's complaint. We upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Mrs C for the failure to take reasonable steps to investigate breaches of planning control and for the failure to handle Mrs C's complaint reasonably. 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:

  • Ensure accurate recordings of the actions taken by the council during planning enforcement investigations are taken, including the outcome of any informal negotiations.
  • Staff should be reminded of the importance of accurate record-keeping.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

  • Council staff should be able to identify accurately the substantive issues contained within a complaint, and the appropriate application of time constraints.

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

  • Report no:
    201811019
  • Date:
    April 2020
  • Body:
    The Moray Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained to my office on behalf of her son, Mr A, about the care and support provided to Mr A by the Council. Mr A was a Looked After Child under Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (a child who is looked after by the local authority as part of a voluntary arrangement). In September 2015, Mr A moved to a residential school placement outwith the Moray area. In June 2019, the Education component of Mr A’s placement ended following his eighteenth birthday. The Council then transitioned Mr A from Children’s to Adult Social Work Services. Adult Services agreed to financially support Mr A to remain in the residential placement for one year until June 2020 or until an appropriate resource was found in the Moray area.

Ms C is concerned that the Council have not fulfilled their responsibility to provide her son’s residential placement under Continuing Care (the local authority’s duty to provide the same accommodation and other assistance as was being provided by the local authority, immediately before the young person ceased to be looked after).

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that:

  • the Council failed to begin transition planning for Mr A at least 3 years before he was due to leave school;
  • the Council failed to carry out a pathway assessment prior to making the decision that Continuing Care was not available to Mr A and prior to transitioning Mr A to Adult services; the Council did not take reasonable steps to ensure that Mr A could make informed choices. In particular:
    • there is no evidence in the records that Mr A was given concrete examples of the type of care he might be offered or that he was taken to see possible care settings;
    • a recommendation made at a Looked After Child Review in January 2018 to offer Mr A independent advocacy was not actioned until over a year later.

In view of these failings, we upheld Ms C’s complaint that the Council failed to act reasonably regarding Mr A’s care and support.

Ms C also complained about the Council’s communication with her about her son’s care and support. Following advice from a social work adviser, we found that:

  • the Council largely engaged with Ms C via email rather than holding meetings outwith the formal Looked After Child Review process;
  • an invite to a Looked After Child Review was sent three days before the Review was due to take place;
  • there was a delay in the Looked After Child Review minutes being available and there was a delay in these being sent to Ms C;
  • Ms C was not provided with information on how to make a Continuing Care request when she requested this.

In light of these findings, we upheld Ms C’s complaint that the Council failed to communicate reasonably with her.

Lastly, Ms C complained about how the Council handled her complaint. We found that there was an unreasonable delay in Ms C receiving a response to her complaint and the Council’s complaint response had been copied directly from an email that had been sent to Ms C before she submitted her complaint.  There was no evidence that the Council had investigated Ms C’s complaints, and the Council’s complaint response did not address all the complaints that Ms C made to the Council or indicate whether her complaints were upheld or not upheld. In view of these significant failings, we upheld Ms C’s complaint that the Council had failed to handle her complaint reasonably.

 

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman's recommendations are set out below:

What we are asking the Council to do for Ms C and Mr 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 failed to begin transition planning for Mr A at least three years before he was due to leave school.
  • the Council failed to carry out a pathway assessment prior to making the decision that Continuing Care was not available to Mr A and prior to transitioning Mr A to Adult Services.
  • the Council did not take reasonable steps to ensure that Mr A could make informed choices. In particular:
    • there is no evidence in the records that Mr A was given concrete examples of the type of care he might be offered or that he was taken to see possible care settings.
    • a recommendation made at a Looked After Child Review in January 2018 to offer Mr A independent advocacy was not actioned until over a year later.

Under complaint (b) we found that the communication with Ms C was unreasonable. In particular:

  • the Council largely engaged with Ms C via email rather than holding meetings outwith the formal Looked After Child Review process.
  • an invite to a Looked After Child Review was sent three days before the Review was due to take place.
  • there was a delay in the Looked After Child Review minutes being available and there was a delay in these being sent to Ms C.
  • Ms C was not provided with information on how to make a Continuing Care request when she requested this.

Under complaint (c) we found that:

  • there was an unreasonable delay in Ms C receiving a complaint response.
  • the Council’s complaint response was copied directly from an email that had been sent to Ms C before she submitted her complaint.
  • there was no evidence that the Council had investigated Ms C’s complaints.
  • the Council’s complaint response did not address all the complaints that Ms C made to the Council or indicate whether her complaints were upheld or not upheld.

Apologise to Ms C and Mr A for:

  • failing to begin transition planning for Mr A at least three years before he was due to leave school.
  • failing to carry out a pathway assessment prior to making the decision that Continuing Care was not available to Mr A and prior to transitioning Mr A to Adult Services.
  • failing to communicate reasonably with Ms C about her son’s care and support.
  • failing to handle her complaint reasonably.

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

A copy or record of the apology.

By: 20 May 2020
2. Under complaint (a) we found that the Council failed to act in line with their ordinary residence policy when they indicated that all out of area children have to move back to the Moray area as the basis for only providing funding for Mr A to remain in the residential placement for one year. Consider whether it would be appropriate to fund Mr A to remain in the residential placement until he is 21 years of age or whether this could be achieved through Self-Directed Support.

Evidence that the Council have considered funding Mr A’s residential placement until he is 21 years of age or whether this could be achieved through Self-Directed Support, taking into account the findings of this investigation, discussing the matter with Ms C and providing Ms C with full reasons for any decisions reached.

By: 20 May 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
3.

Under complaint (a) we found that the Council failed to begin transition planning for Mr A at least three years before he was due to leave school.

Where a young person has significant additional support needs, transition planning should begin at least three years before a young person is due to leave school.

 

 

Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions).

Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to transition planning.

By: 22 October 2020
4. Under complaint (a) we found that the Council failed to carry out a pathway assessment in line with their Transition to Adult Services Policy prior to making the decision that Continuing Care was not available to Mr A. Where a young person is approaching adulthood, a pathways assessment should also be carried out to assess throughcare and aftercare options (including an assessment of whether it is in the young person’s best interests to remain in their current placement under Continuing Care rather than transitioning to Adult Services) with the input of the young person, their parents/guardians, Adult Services and any other interested agencies.

Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions).

Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to pathways assessments, Continuing Care and Ordinary Residence.

Evidence that the Council have reviewed their Continuing Care Procedure taking into account Mr A’s case and the legislative framework.

By: 22 October 2020
5.

Under complaint (a) we found that the Council did not take reasonable steps to ensure that Mr A could make informed choices. In particular:

  • there is no evidence in the records that Mr A was given concrete examples of the type of care he might be offered or that he was taken to see possible care settings.
  • a recommendation made at a Looked After Child Review in January 2018 to offer Mr A independent advocacy was not actioned until over a year later.

Looked After Children with complex needs should be given examples of the type of care they might be offered and be taken to see possible care settings.

Where a recommendation has been made to offer a Looked After Child independent advocacy, this should be acted on timeously.

Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions).

Evidence that the Council have considered any training needs for social work staff in relation to making sure that Looked After Children with complex needs can make informed choices.

By: 22 October 2020
6. Under complaint (b) we found that the Council largely engaged with Ms C via email rather than holding meetings outwith the formal Looked After Child Review process. The Council should engage in a meaningful way, including holding meetings with parents/guardians, outwith the formal Looked After Child Review process, when planning the future care for Looked After Children with complex needs.

Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions).

By: 22 October 2020
7. Under complaint (b) we found that Ms C was not provided with information on how to make a Continuing Care request when she requested this. Information on how to make a Continuing Care request should be provided to individuals when they request it.

Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions).

By: 22 October 2020
8.

Under complaint (b) we found that:

  • an invite to a Looked After Child Review was sent three days before the Review was due to take place.
  • there was a delay in the Looked After Child Review minutes being available and there was a delay in these being sent to Ms C.

Invites to Looked After Child Reviews should be distributed in a timely way.

Minutes of Looked After Child Review should be typed up and distributed in a timely way.

Evidence that the Council have a system in place to timeously:

  • distribute invites to Looked After Child Reviews.
  • type up and distribute minutes of Looked After Child Reviews.

By: 22 October 2020

We are asking the Council to improve their complaints handling:

Rec. number

What we found

Outcome needed

What we need to see
9

Under complaint (c) we found that:

  • there was an unreasonable delay in Ms C receiving a complaint response.
  • the Council’s complaint response was copied directly from an email that had been sent to Ms C before she submitted her complaint.
  • there was no evidence that the Council had investigated Ms C’s complaints.
  • the Council’s complaint response did not address all the complaints that Ms C made to the Council or indicate whether her complaints were upheld or not upheld.

The necessary systems should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the Moray Council’s complaint handling procedure and the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and that all staff responsible for dealing with complaints should be aware of their responsibilities in this respect.

Evidence that the findings on these complaints have been fed back to relevant staff in a supportive way (e.g. a record of a meeting with staff; or feedback given at one-to-one sessions).

Evidence that the Council’s systems demonstrate senior level/governance responsibility for complaint handling.

By: 22 October 2020

Feedback

Points to note:

I note that the Ordinary Residence Policy and Procedure on the Council’s website appears to be out of date. The SPSO appear to have been provided with the most up to date copy of this policy and procedure. The Council may wish to consider updating this on their website.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201810588
  • Date:
    March 2020
  • Body:
    West Lothian Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    home helps / concessions / grants / charges for services

Summary

Mrs C complained that, prior to her parents accepting the offer of a tenancy at a residential accommodation run on behalf of the council, they were not adequately informed of housing support charges which were payable to the council, separate to the rent and service charges for the accommodation. Mrs C's position was that, if they had been made aware of these charges, her parents would never have accepted the tenancy given the level of cost. The council investigated and said that the potential for charges had been discussed and Mrs C and her parents were advised to seek advice regarding liability and any help with covering the costs. Whilst the council accepted that their communication of the charges and the level of the charges could have been clearer, they concluded that the offer letter issued to Mrs C and her parents was clear in highlighting additional charges were applicable. Mrs C was dissatisfied with the response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the council could have recorded more clearly the information provided and the extent of the discussion regarding charges. The council provided evidence of the changes they had made to the process, where prospective tenants are now provided with written documentation regarding the full extent of charges and asked to sign a disclaimer confirming this has been received. Whilst the communications could have been clearer, on the basis that the offer letter clearly highlighted the potential for additional charges and referenced information provided with the offer, this was sufficient notice for Mrs C and her parents to make further enquiries to establish the extent of their liability for charges. On this basis, we considered that the council had done enough to make Mrs C and her parents aware. We did not uphold the complaint.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201810535
  • Date:
    March 2020
  • Body:
    The Highland Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    secondary school

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to reports that her child (Child A) was being bullied at school. We found that the council's bullying policy and guidance does not oblige the school to take specific actions in relation to pupils. It obliges them to take some action, based on the individual circumstances of the reported incident(s). The council have the discretion to decide what action they choose to take, whether to inform parents/carers, whether to liaise with other agencies and whether to implement wider school interventions. Having reviewed the action taken by the council, we were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their policy and guidance on bullying. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Related reading

Subscribe to Local Government