Local Government

  • 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

  • Case ref:
    201708630
  • Date:
    March 2020
  • Body:
    The Highland Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    primary school

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to ensure that there was adequate support in place for her child (Child A) at school. The council had accepted that there were occasions when information about Child A was not taken into account and there were occasions when it was not fully shared. There was also insufficient up-to-date information for new staff at the school and there should have been more proactive partnership working with mental health services. In view of these failings, we upheld the complaint.

Ms C also complained that Child A's teacher had unreasonably failed to support them in class. We did not find any clear evidence of failings in relation to this and we did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C complained that the head teacher at the school unreasonably failed to fulfil their role as named person and lead professional under the Highland Practice Model. We found that the child's plan in place at the start of the school year had been out-of-date and there were then delays in updating this. We upheld this complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the council had failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into her complaints. We found that the council had carried out a thorough investigation, but that the response did not provide adequate information about the action the council would take to put things right or to ensure that the failings were not repeated. It also failed to adequately apologise for the failings identified. For these reasons, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Ms C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance .

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

  • Ensure that there is clear guidance in place for staff in relation to the relationship between a child's plan and co-ordinated support plan.
  • Where appropriate under the Highland Practice Model, there should be an up-to-date child's plan in place.

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:
    201805833
  • Date:
    March 2020
  • Body:
    North Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably acted in contravention of the title deeds of his property, that they had unfairly discriminated against him and his family and that they had failed to investigate his complaints over six months.

We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve a boundary dispute between Mr C as a property owner and his neighbour, who was a council tenant. We could not determine whether the council had contravened the council deeds as this is not a matter we can consider. We found that council staff had not treated Mr C or his family unfairly, although we recognised that he and members of his family had found dealing with council staff distressing at times. We also found that the council had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints with evidence they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201810306
  • Date:
    March 2020
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    primary school

Summary

Mrs C complained that there was a failure by the council to thoroughly investigate incidents involving her child (Child A) at their primary school. She outlined four separate incidents which she felt had not been investigated appropriately and felt that the council's complaint investigation was biased towards the school.

We found that a thorough investigation was carried out into each incident. We also considered that the council's complaint investigation into Mrs C's concerns was detailed and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we suggested as feedback to the council that they may wish to consider whether having a policy or guidance regarding how incidents in school should be investigated and/or recorded would be of help to staff to ensure consistency within and across schools in their area.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201804948
  • Date:
    March 2020
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    repairs and maintenance

Summary

Ms C complained to the council on behalf of her son (Mr A) about a council property he moved into.

Ms C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs to Mr A's property in line with their obligations and relevant policies and procedures. We agreed with the council that there may be snagging issues when someone moves into a new property. Therefore, we did not consider the fact there were repair issues after Mr A moved into the property to be unreasonable. However, we found some of the timescales and communication around repairs to be unreasonable. Furthermore, we did not consider the council always gave sufficient consideration to Mr A's personal circumstances, particularly when scheduling repairs and providing notification of visits. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council failed to carry out reasonable adaptations to Mr A's garden in line with their obligations and previous assurances provided to him. We noted the council's policies and guidance, which indicated that only basic work will generally be carried out in respect of garden areas before a new tenant moves in. Furthermore, we did not consider there to be evidence to suggest the council failed to carry out specific work or adaptations previously committed to. We agreed with Ms C that evidence she provided shows the garden was in a poor condition and not clear of rubbish when Mr A initially moved in, although this was addressed by the council later. We provided feedback to the council about this. However, we did not consider this to mean that the council failed to carry out reasonable adaptations to the garden. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the council let the property to Mr A when it was not in a safe or reasonably suitable condition for him to move in. Ms C highlighted the number of repairs that were carried out after Mr A moved into the property and the fact that the windows in the property were replaced shortly after he moved in to bring them up to Scottish Housing Quality Standard. We considered the council's position, that the fact Mr A's windows were replaced as part of a scheduled programme of works, did not mean they were unsafe to be reasonable. In respect of the repairs required, we did not consider that the council failed to carry out appropriate pre-tenancy checks. We had some concerns about the accuracy of the information contained in the council's pre-tenancy paperwork. However, overall, we did not consider the evidence to indicate that the council let the property to Mr A when it was not in a safe or reasonably suitable condition for him to move in. Therefore, on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Mr A for failing to carry out repairs to his property in line with their obligations and relevant policies and procedures. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .
  • Make contact with Mr A or his representative and offer to discuss the best way to arrange repairs or visits in the future.

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

  • The council should carry out and co-ordinate repairs within a reasonable timescale and give appropriate consideration to a tenant's health issues when doing so.

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

Subscribe to Local Government