Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained about the support provided to him by the council following his release on licence from prison. Mr C also complained about the content of a report that the council submitted to the Parole Board, requesting consideration of Mr C being recalled to prison. We took independent advice from a social worker. We did not find evidence that the council's decision-making or the support provided to Mr C was unreasonable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about their handling of confidential documents relating to her mother (Mrs A). Her complaints were upheld and a number of recommendations were made, but the council delayed in implementing the recommendations. We investigated Mrs C's complaint about the delay. We found that the delay had been unreasonable and upheld the complaint. Although the council said that they had now implemented all of the recommendations, we requested evidence of this to satisfy ourselves that this had been done.

With regard to the complaints handling, the council should have followed their complaint process from the outset but failed to do so. When the council said that they were treating Mrs C's complaint as a Stage 2 complaint (investigation stage), as requested by Mrs C, their response showed no sign of investigation and contained inconsistent statements. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the delay in implementing the recommendations, with a recognition of the impact. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to Mrs C for their unreasonable complaints handling. 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:

• Staff involved in complaint investigations should be familiar with the Complaints Handling Procedure and ensure it is followed appropriately.

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 on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council failed to deal properly with a development on land adjacent to that which Mr A owned. Mr C said that the council failed to carry out a traffic impact assessment (TIA), to confirm if a road was adopted and to deal with his complaint properly.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council were entitled as a roads authority to exercise their discretion over requesting updates to the TIA. In addition, the council had imposed a planning condition to regulate traffic flow. We also found that the council had provided Mr C and Mr A with all the information they were legally required to hold and they had acted reasonably. We considered that the council could demonstrate that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaint, and that his disagreement with the council's decision was not evidence of maladministration. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow relevant procedures after an incident occurred at her child's (Child A) school. Mrs C was concerned that an ambulance and the police were not called immediately after the incident, and that appropriate support was not in place for Child A's return to school.

We found that it was a discretionary decision for the council on whether to call the emergency services based on their assessment of the situation at the time. We did not find evidence of an administrative or procedural failure on the part of the council which would lead us to question their decisions. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of his child's (Child A) school in relation to an incident that took place during a meeting. Mr C said that the council failed to act appropriately after the incident took place. The council stated that there was no agreement about what took place during the meeting.

We considered that it was clear that Mr C and the school had provided a different account of the incident. Therefore, we did not take a view on what exactly took place during the meeting. However, we did have concerns about the lack of recording and reporting that took place following the incident. We appreciate that there was an element of professional judgement involved in what incidents should be recorded, however, under the particular circumstances, we considered there to be a number of factors that suggested further recording and reporting of the incident was warranted. This included the fact that an animal was involved in the incident, that a risk assessment had previously been carried out and the circumstances matched some of the risks identified, and that there was a disagreement between the school and parent about what had taken place.

We concluded that it would have been appropriate for the school to have recorded the incident and an appropriate senior member of staff to consider what took place in line with the council's Electronic Incident Reporting Standard. Therefore, we did not consider the school to have taken appropriate actions after the incident and upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to take appropriate action after the incident involving Child A. 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:

• School staff should reflect on what happened and consider their responsibilities in relation to incident recording and reporting.
• In schools where animals are present for educational purposes, staff should be aware of what to do if something goes wrong and what should be recorded and reported.

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

Ms C complained about the primary school her child (Child A) attended. She complained that she was not updated about Child A's academic progress; that Child A was unreasonably given access to scissors; that there was an unreasonable failure to record incidents with other pupils; and that there was a failure to communicate reasonably with her regarding her concerns.

In relation to Child A's academic progress, we found that there were appropriate pupil progress reports and that these had been discussed with Ms C at parents' evenings. We considered that this was reasonable and that although there was no record of other discussions about Child A's academic progress, this was appropriate as it was not something which appeared to have been raised. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

With regard to Child A having access to scissors, we were not able to establish that this had occurred and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we noted that there appeared to have been some inconsistencies in the way an incident was recorded, and we suggested that the council may wish to reflect upon this.

We found that the council's recording of incidents with other pupils was reasonable and in line with policy, and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, in relation to communication, we found that on one occasion, there was a failure to pass a letter that Ms C had handed in to the school to the appropriate person. We considered that this was likely to be a one-off failure, however, we upheld the complaint about communication on this basis.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the failure to pass on Ms C's letter to the class teacher. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance

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 and Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow a reasonable process in deciding to alter the foster carer's mileage allowance. The decision to change the mileage rate was a discretionary decision which the council were entitled to take. However, where there is a complaint that the discretionary decision was made without following a reasonable process, our office are entitled to investigate.

The council did not provide evidence that they had followed a reasonable process when altering the mileage rate. As no evidence was provided to support the specific mileage rate identified, or evidence of research to support the council's view that the new rate covered fuel costs for foster carers prior to the decision being made, the complaint was upheld.

Recommendations

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

• The council should ensure that they provide a clear rationale to support changes which directly affect foster carers.
• Make clear guidance available to foster carers for what the different allowances cover.

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 decision to significantly increase fees for musical tuition. He considered the council had not followed due process, in that there had been insufficient consultation on the decision, or assessment of the impact the decision would have.

We found that the council had held a number of public consultation meetings relating to their proposed budget and that there was recorded evidence to show that musical tuition was raised at some of these. We also found that they had carried out an appropriate equality impact assessment on the decision, which did not highlight any equality concerns. Overall, we were satisfied that the council had reasonably complied with their policies and procedures before reaching the decision. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.