Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of aspects of the authority's handling of a planning application, their discharge of various conditions on the planning application, and their failure to take enforcement actions on breaches of planning conditions.

We took independent planning advice on the complaints. We found that the authority had followed the appropriate guidance and legislation in all aspects of the complaints and that there was no evidence of maladministration in the way they had taken various discretionary decisions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable level of housing support. Mr C lives in sheltered accommodation and had experienced some significant problems with his property since moving there. Mr C said that the Sheltered Housing Officer (SHO) was not on site enough and felt that he should not have to pay the housing support charge. After we became involved, the council met with Mr C to try to resolve his complaint, and provided apologies for the problems he had experienced with his tenancy.

In their response to our enquiry, the council said that a breakdown of the care and support charges was clearly itemised on the Tenancy Agreement Mr C had signed. They also explained that the SHO was not on site all of the time but should be available to respond on the telephone if called upon. They also said that when Mr C moved into sheltered housing he requested not to have contact with a SHO. Based on the available evidence, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C had also complained about the tone of some of the council's complaint correspondence. While we acknowledged that Mr C was upset by some of the content of the correspondence, we noted that the council are entitled to seek to limit communication where a matter has already exhausted their complaints process. We found that the council's handling of the complaint had been reasonable and therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that some of their email correspondence with Mr C could have been more sensitively worded and we fed this back to the council.

Summary

Ms C complained about water damage to her property due to works carried out by the council as part of a Flood Prevention Scheme (FPS). Ms C said that the council failed to investigate the effect of the water damage and remedy these issues. Ms C also complained about vibrations from a nearby road, the quality of the council's communication with her about these issues and their response to her complaint.

We found that the council did conduct a suitable investigation into the effect of water damage to Ms C's property. They investigated concerns about sediment in a burn and took action to remedy this. They continued to monitor both the water flow and level and conducted annual inspection of the burn. No further problems had been identified since the gabion mattresses (a cage or box filled with rocks or other material for use in landscaping, road building etc) were installed and we considered that the council's investigation and remedial action had been reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaints.

In relation to the vibrations from the nearby road, we noted that the council repaired the road, but when Ms C raised continued concerns, no further inspection was conducted. We considered that the council should have attended the road and/or met with Ms C to establish any outstanding issues. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council's response to Ms C's complaint was appropriate and responded to the issues raised within the timescales set out in their complaint handling procedure. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, we found that the council did not respond to two letters Ms C sent raising her concerns. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to respond to her letters. The apology should meet the standards set out inthe SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Contact Ms C to establish if the road issue remains a problem to her. If it does, they should then conduct an investigation and advise Ms C of their findings.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning appliction properly and to respond reasonably to complaints about the planning process. Mr C suggested that the council had produced an inaccurate report on the planning application, which had deliberately misled Planning Committee members. Mr C also complained that the council had attempted to improperly influence a statutory consultee by putting pressure on them in order to reverse their objection to the application. Mr C said the council had refused to correct this, even when presented with factual evidence to the contrary.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council had acted appropriately and that the report had provided an accurate summary of the application, the objections to it and the council's statutory duties. We found that the council had handled the application reasonably and that they had responded appropriately to the complaints they had received. The council did not dispute having contacted the statutory consultee, but said the reasons for this were appropriate. The advice we received agreed with this and we found no evidence that the council had attempted to unduly influence the consultation process. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C is a tenant of the council and following an inspection from his housing officer, he was advised that he had too many cats in his property and was instructed to reduce the number to three. Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a valid reason for why he should reduce the number of pets he has. He noted that his tenancy agreement did not specify a number.

The council said that they had received reports about the condition of Mr C's property from their repairs tradesmen and a neighbour. The housing officer had also carried out an inspection. The council explained that while the tenancy agreement does not specify the number of pets a tenant should have, it is at their discretion as a landlord, and their decision is based on reasonableness and a consideration of the size of the property.

We found that the council had adequate evidence to support their decision that Mr C should reduce the number of his pets in the form of reports from their repairs tradesmen, housing officers and a neighbour. We also noted that the council sought legal advice regarding their interpretation of the tenancy agreement and that this was good practice. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to provide accurate information for couples seeking to adopt and that they unreasonably prevented her from progressing her adoption application. Mrs C said that she had not been clearly informed that her weight would be an issue, or how much weight she needed to lose in order to progress. Mrs C also felt that the process was unfair as it relied on Body Mass Index (a measure for estimating human body fat) which she felt was not an accurate measure of her health.

We found that the council had provided appropriate information to Mrs C in relation to weight and adoption. We also found that the council had appropriately followed medical advice and had not unreasonably prevented Mrs C from progressing her adoption assessment. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council had not handled Mrs C's complaint reasonably. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We noted that the council had recognised and apologised for this failing and we made no further recommendations.