Local Government

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.