Local Government

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.

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.