Local Government

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 We found that the child's plan in place at the start of the school year had been out-of-date and there were then delays in updating this.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.

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.

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.

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received from a care home in the Stirling council area. Mrs C removed Mr A from the care home back to his family home. Mrs C had become increasingly concerned about Mr A's welfare in the care home and its suitability for a person with Mr A's particular needs. After Mr A returned to the family home, Mrs C complained about the care home to the Care Inspectorate who then investigated. When the council became aware of the Care Inspectorate report and findings they contacted Mrs C for more information. Subsequently the council initiated an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) Investigation using their authority under the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. The council investigation reported several months later and concluded that there was no evidence that Mr A was at risk of harm. Mrs C was unhappy with the conclusions of the council's report and also the quality and scope of their investigation. Mrs C complained to the council but remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the terms of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 only apply where a person is at possible risk of harm. By the time the council became involved, Mr A was living back at home and there was no suggestion he was at risk of harm, and so they should not have conducted their investigation as they did. We also found that the investigation did not properly consider and test all the evidence available and did not use an appropriate standard of proof (looking for near certainty rather than a balanced decision). We also found that the investigation of Mrs C's complaint by the council had not properly considered all of her concerns. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

We noted that the council had previously provided us with evidence of changes it had already made to its processes and training of staff. We made a number of further recommendations to help ensure staff have the appropriate skills and knowledge to conduct both adult protection and complaints investigations in the future.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the unreasonable reporting of the adult support and protection investigation, and acknowledge how difficult this experience has been for the family. The apology should meet the standard set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mrs C and her family for the failure to properly consider Mr A's current situation in deciding to undertake an ASP investigation; conduct an investigation in line with their own guidance and timescales; communicate with Mrs and Mr C in an open and transparent way at all times; apply the appropriate standard to the evidence considered; properly assess and interrogate some of the evidence; identify these failures during their own complaint investigation; properly conduct a complaints investigation. 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:

• In similar cases, calling all parties involved together to discuss and plan the way forward should be considered.
• Staff should be aware of the principles of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act (2007).
• Staff should be aware of how best to assist an adult with complex needs to communicate their views and wishes and be aware of how to access assistance in doing this.
• Staff should be aware of the purpose of any investigation and the relevant standards that apply. Staff should be able to appropriatley obtain and evaluate the evidence and use this to give reasons for decisions reached. The Scottish Government has issued guidance to decision makers which will help support staff in decion-making. This can be found at http://www2.gov.scot/publications/2010/02/23134246/0

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Full information relating to social work matters under investigation should be supplied when requested by the SPSO.
• Staff should be aware of the scope of a complaints investigation and the relevant standards that apply. Staff should be able to appropriately obtain and evaluate the evidence obtained and use this to give reasons for decisions reached. SPSO have issued

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 manages a direct payment on behalf of his son and he complained to the council about their procedures. Mr C complained that the council's financial monitoring procedures were not sufficiently robust to ensure that he can manage the direct payment appropriately. He said he was wrongly accused of spending the money inappropriately and that the council's monitoring procedures are not 'light touch' as the Scottish Government advises they should be; he also said that the council failed to make reasonable support and guidance available to him as a personal assistant employer. Mr C said it was not clear what he could and could not spend the direct payment budget on and that the council were not keen to fund a membership for a support service, which he required.

The council said that it is not always possible to list every item that might be permitted in a person's support plan, however, there is a system in place whereby if the finance department wanted to query an item of expenditure they would contact the allocated social worker. The council also provided details of the different ways they support personal assistant employers.

We took independent social work advice and found that the policies and procedures the council had in place were reasonable and there was clear information provided about the support that was available. The council's financial monitoring procedures were appropriate and reasonable, and there was evidence that the council provided the appropriate funding for support services to Mr C. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the increased number of waste and recycling bins which are being stored on the pavement of his street. He said that the council were failing to address the issue. He asked for the council to have a formal policy in place for bin removal and to explain why his request to access reports/correspondence relating to this issue was not upheld. The council said a new mixed recycling service meant that there are more bins on the street and residents have told them that they have nowhere to store them. The council said that there is no quick solution to this and that they would be happy to explore any suggested options.

We found that the council were unable to provide evidence that they had consulted with residents about the issue of bin storage. They were also unable to provide evidence that they had carried out any assessment of alternative bin provision, such as communal disposal options. We also found that the council had not carried out the actions that they had said it would in response to Mr C's complaint, such as identifying and removing unused bins from the street. The council had already taken steps to improve record-keeping and to ensure that contact with the public was properly recorded. The council's responses to Mr C and to this office could not be supported by evidence other than staff recollection. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failures in relation to record-keeping and providing evidence of their actions. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Make a new offer to engage with Mr C in order to identify solutions to the bins storage issue.

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

• The council should consult with residents and inform them of the results.
• The council should review the bins to identify and remove any that are unwanted or unused.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council need to ensure that complaint responses are based on contemporaneous written evidence, not only on unsupported staff recollections.

Summary

Mr C complained that an approved extension to a neighbouring property was in breach of the relevant planning guidance. Mr C considered that the height of the rooflights were too low and that the privacy and amenity of his garden would be compromised. Mr C also argued the development was inappropriate in size and scale and would be overbearing when compared with other properties. In addition, Mr C believed that the reduction in garden ground would be excessive as much of the front garden was taken up by parking and hardstanding.

We found that there had been no procedural errors on the part of the council when handling the application. Mr C's objections had been considered by the planning committee as part of the report. We considered that there were no grounds for this office to question the professional judgement the planning officers had exercised when compiling the report considered by the planning committee. Mr C subsequently contacted us raising further questions about the planning guidance which might apply. Whilst this was noted, we explained to Mr C that planning guidance is not binding and that a planning officer is entitled to take into account the circumstances of each individual application when deciding the extent to which the planning guidance needed to be applied. We found that the council's report to the planning committee set out in some detail how the application had been amended to bring it into line with planning guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not reasonably respond to reports of bullying against his child (Child A).

We found that the school had appropriately followed both their own, and the council's anti-bullying policy in approaching the issues raised by Mr C. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had handled a planning application inappropriately under the wrong section of planning legislation and failed to properly screen it to see if it required an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

We found that the council had acknowledged that it had failed to handle the application properly, or to screen it for an EIA as required. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we were not satisfied that the actions proposed by the council were sufficiently robust to prevent a reoccurrence, and so we made further recommendations in order to ensure the relevant learning was embedded within the council's planning procedures.

Recommendations

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

• The council should ensure they have adequate checks in place to prevent planning applications being processed inappropriately.
• The council should ensure they have adequate checks in place to ensure planning applications are screened appropriately for EIAs.

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.