Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's response to the child protection concerns raised in respect of her child (Child A). The council led a child protection investigation and Mrs C complained about the handling of the investigation, highlighting a number of concerns about the quality of the initial assessment undertaken, the actions taken in response to Child A's disclosure and the level of initial support and follow-up provided to Mrs C and her family.

The council acknowledged that there were some failings in their handling of the child protection investigation and they confirmed that, since the complaint was raised by Mrs C, an external review was conducted and child protection training was delivered to all social work staff. We investigated the complaint further to ensure that all failings were identified and that appropriate learning and improvement was put in place. In doing so, we examined the case records and sought independent advice from an experienced social worker.

We found that the council's case records were of a poor standard and as a result, there was a lack of evidence of the actions taken and the rationale for the decisions made. We also identified that communication with Mrs C and her family was unreasonable. We concluded that the council failed to adhere to the child protection procedures and relevant guidance by failing to ensure that there were two social workers present when Child A was interviewed; to consider the gender appropriateness of the interviewing social worker; to undertake a welfare home visit to Mrs C and Child A; and to consult with health or education prior to undertaking the investigation. We upheld the complaints and made some additional recommendations, including a request for evidence of the actions already taken by the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should share the outcome of the review in an appropriate manner that protects any confidential information.

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

• The council should ensure that all staff are aware of the importance of maintaining accurate case records which detail notes of the decisions made and the rationale for them.

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 about the council's response to his reports about the high electricity usage at his property. Following our enquiries, the council acknowledged that there was a note within their records to fit an E10 timer at Mr C's property which was not actioned and would have resulted in additional cost to Mr C. The council said they were willing to offer Mr C a letter of apology and compensation. Mr C accepted this as a resolution to his complaint and the complaint was closed on that basis.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council after they restricted his access to council properties following allegations of aggressive behaviour towards staff. He considered these accusations were unreasonable, and that the decision to ban him from properties was disproportionate. Mr C also complained about a delay in the council's response to his request to appeal the decision.

We found that the council had sufficient evidence that staff had felt intimidated by Mr C's behaviour to enact restrictions to his contact. We also found that they had reasonably put in place a point of contact through which Mr C could arrange access to facilities by prior appointment. We considered that the council had acted reasonably and within their discretion in making these decisions. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

In response to Mr C's complaint to them, the council had accepted that the delay he had experienced was unreasonable, provided an explanation for the causes of this, committed to ensuring this did not happen in future and apologised. Given this, we upheld Mr C's complaint about delays, but did not consider any recommendations were required.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to appropriately investigate an incident that caused injury to her child at school. Ms C also said that they failed to handle her complaint reasonably.

We found a number of failures by the council in following their internal health and safety policy. They had failed to take witness statements at the time of the incident, sections of the forms in question had not been completed and there was a delay of a number of weeks in completing the form. There was also insufficient contemporaneous evidence to support what was recorded on the forms and on further investigations that the council told us were carried out; this meant that they were unable to demonstrate they had drawn fully formed conclusions.

We also found that the council had made errors in escalating Ms C's complaints, and failed to consistently acknowledge the seriousness of the injury. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to carry out an adequate investigation in line with relevant guidance. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Ms C for failing to provide a reasonable response to her complaint.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:

• Investigations of any future incidents should be carried out in line with relevant guidelines.
• Documentary evidence should be kept.
• An incident report form, and relevant guidance, appropriate to schools should be developed.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should respond to all relevant concerns raised.

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 that the council failed unreasonably to respond to her complaint about flooding at her home and, that they failed to provide a reasonable emergency out-of-hours service.

We found there to have been confusion with the councils complaints handlers on whether Mrs C's original contact was a request for service, and not a service complaint. Mrs C then asked for her complaint to be escalated to Stage 2, where she experienced several months delay awaiting a response. Only after this office's involvement did Mrs C receive an appropriate final letter. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

However, we found the council to have responded reasonably to Mrs C's request for an out-of-hours service, and they did so in line with the system they had in place at that time. There is no statutory requirement for the council to maintain a comprehensive out-of-hours service for customers with issues on the local roads network, and in the event of someone calling their out-of-hours number, they would be given other appropriate advice. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the failure to deal reasonably with her complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be aware of and follow the council's complaints handling procedure.

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 to the council that flooding in his back garden was caused by drainage problems in the school grounds located to the rear of his back garden. The council's position was that the flooding was not their responsibility and may be caused by landscaping in Mr C's garden.

The council said that the school contract requires the school area to be free of standing water after a number of hours following rainfall and that additional gully drainage was installed many years ago to assist with localised ponding. They said their investigation showed there was a gradual slope to the playground which water would run down away from Mr C's property.

The council instructed an engineer to attend Mr C's home and visit the school site. A few weeks later a council officer and a contractor visited Mr C at home, and advised Mr C that their opinion was that the hard landscaping in his back garden was forming a basin which was likely to be the reason the rainfall was pooling in his garden. The council emailed Mr C to confirm that, given his concerns, their facilities management contractor had instructed work to be carried out to jet the drains in the school again. They later confirmed to our office that this work had not been carried out.

Although we considered that the council had carried out reasonable investigations in order to assess Mr C's concerns, we were critical of the council for failing to carry out their commitment to jet the drains. We also noted discrepancies in the records of the facilities management contractor, which showed no evidence or record of ponding. This was at odds with the engineer's reports and confirmation supplied by Mr C, showing evidence of ponding.

On the basis that the council offered to undertake works, which an appropriately qualified person instructed and put in writing to Mr C, but then did not carry out, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that the council had failed to set out or explain their investigations in their complaint responses. We found the responses to be brief and that they did not include the level of detail required to evidence that the council had investigated Mr C's complaint. We also upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to adequately address his concerns about flooding on his property and for failing to handle his complaint reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Arrange for the jetting of the drains at the school to be completed. They should contact Mr C, following receipt of a report from the contractor, to discuss the findings.

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

• Council staff should properly inspect and scrutinise maintenance records of external facilities management services, taking into account information received from third parties, its own inspections and complaints, to ensure records are being maintained correctly and contractual obligations are being met.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should respond to complaints in accordance with their complaints procedure. Stage 2 responses should contain sufficient detail to evidence the investigations undertaken and the conclusions.

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 unfairly imposed restrictions on his contact with them, had not followed their unacceptable actions policy (UAP) and failed to properly consider Mr C's appeal against the restrictions imposed under the UAP. Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to his complaint in line with their obligations.

We found that the council had failed to provide Mr C with a warning about his contact at the time these contacts were received from Mr C. In addition, we considered that the council were unable to evidence that a warning letter, which is required under the UAP, was sent to Mr C. Therefore, when restrictions on Mr C's contact were imposed, these were done immediately and without the UAP having been followed. We also found that the council failed to properly consider Mr C's appeal against the restrictions imposed. We, therefore, upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that Mr C raised issues in his complaint that the council had not considered as a complaint, and had not responded to. We found that these issues should have been considered as a complaint and that, in accordance with the council's complaints handling procedure, a response should have been provided. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not providing him with warnings, as required under their UAP, prior to imposing restrictions on his contact. Also apologise for failing to respond to his complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to the appeal within 10 working days, and not appropriately considering the points raised in Mr C's appeal. 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:

• The council must make a note of phone calls and retain evidence of a customer's contact where this is relied upon to justify imposing restrictions on a customer's contact under the UAP.
• The council must ensure that relevant staff are reminded of the requirements of the UAP, particularly the procedures to be followed on receipt of an appeal, including the appropriate staffing and timescales of appeals.
• The council must ensure that consideration of appeals under the UAP are appropriately documented.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be appropriately identified and responded to in accordance with the complaints handling procedure.

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 that the council had handled a planning application unreasonably. She noted that there were a number of admitted errors, which she said materially affected the conclusion reached by the planning officer.

We took independent planning advice and found that although the council had acknowledged these errors, they were not sufficient to consider the council acted inappropriately or unreasonably. The council had provided detailed explanations for their decision and had been able to demonstrate that they were made on appropriate planning grounds. In addition we found some of the issues being raised by Mrs C, such as a boundary dispute with the developer, were in fact civil matters and could not be decided through the planning process. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the actions of her child's (Child A) school following reports of bullying. She explained that her child had been bullied most of their school life and that the bullying had mostly been carried out by one other child. Mrs C acknowledged that the school had taken some actions and the situation had started to improve. However, incidents later continued, leaving her child increasingly upset and anxious. In light of this, Mrs C felt the school had not done enough to prevent the bullying incidents and provide support to her child. Mrs C also complained about whether the incidents of bullying had been recorded appropriately by the school. Finally, Mrs C complained about how the council had communicated with her during and after the complaints process.

In respect of the first complaint, we concluded that the school had taken reasonable and appropriate steps to address incidents of bullying experienced by Child A. We noted that the school had appeared to have taken a number of steps to prevent interactions between Child A and the other child, provide support to Child A and put in place measures to address the other child's behaviours. The approach taken by the school appeared to be tailored to the individual circumstances of Child A and the type of bullying they were experiencing. We acknowledged that there were times where the other child had interacted with Child A in an upsetting way despite these measures being in place. However, we recognised that it can be very difficult to prevent such incidents from happening completely. Overall, we concluded that the school took the reports of bullying seriously and made reasonable efforts to assist Child A and prevent further incidents from happening. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The second complaint related to how the school recorded incidents of bullying. Mrs C had submitted a freedom of information (FOI) request to determine what incidents involving Child A had been recorded on the SEEMiS system used by schools in the council area. The FOI revealed that one incident had been recorded on the SEEMiS system. Mrs C understood this to mean that only one incident of bullying had been recorded by the school. The council explained that, at the time of their complaint response, bullying incidents were recorded by the school in SEEMiS. However, previous incidents had been recorded in paper format.

The council's anti-bullying policy stated that schools should ensure that bullying incidents are recorded and monitored using SEEMiS. From the information we reviewed, it is apparent that the school was not using the SEEMiS system for a significant period of time while this policy was in place. The council advised us that the Scottish Government Supplementary Guidance did not place a statutory duty on councils to record incidents using SEEMiS. They also highlighted that there would be a period of transition towards using SEEMiS in schools and this would take time. We recognised the council's perspective but measured the school's actions against the specific council policy in place at the time. This policy appeared to be clear that SEEMiS should be used by schools at that point in time, not that there was an intention to move towards its use. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C also complained about how her complaint to the council and subsequent correspondence was handled. We concluded that the council's handling of the actual complaint itself was reasonable. However, we noted that Mrs C had contacted the council to query some of the contents of their Stage 2 (investigation stage) response. The council did not respond to this for 27 days, during which time Mrs C had approached the executive director of education and children's services. As a result of this delayed response, the school term had ended and the head teacher could not be reached due to being on annual leave. This led to a delay in Mrs C receiving clarification on the issues she had raised. We considered that the council's communication after their Stage 2 response was issued to be unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to record bullying incidents on the SEEMiS system, in line with the relevant council policy and for not acting on or responding to post-complaint correspondence within a reasonable timeframe. 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:

• Correspondence received after a Stage 2 response has been issued should be acted on and responded to within a reasonable timeframe.

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 that the council's communication with her regarding the need for planning permission was unreasonable. Mrs C suggested that the council had provided incorrect planning advice and later unreasonably changed their view on whether an application for a change of use was required, causing a delay to when Mrs C's business could commence trading.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had adequate information at an early point to reasonably conclude that it would be necessary for Mrs C to require a change of use planning permission. The initial advice indicated that planning permission was not required unless the anticipated level of sales and activity increased. The council provided inconsistent information and rationales to support their decisions. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to reasonably communicate with her. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• The council should communicate in a clear manner, ensuring a clear, consistent rationale is provided when issuing pre-application advice and appropriately recorded.

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.