Local Government

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.

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.