Local Government

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.

Summary

Ms C complained about the decision to withdraw funding from her father's (Mr A) care home placement. The council believed Mr A had deliberately deprived himself of an asset in order to avoid paying fees. We had asked the council to review this decision; however, having done so, they upheld their original decision.

We found that the council acted reasonably in their application of the relevant guidance on charging for residential care. The council was able to evidence that they were not required to prove that deprivation of assets was the primary motive in the disposal of an asset. The council was only required to show that it was reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that the deprivation of assets could have been a motivation. We found that the council could have reasonably reached that conclusion from the evidence and their decision was, therefore, reasonable. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow a number of social work procedures. Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) had been foster carers; however, following a child protection investigation (CPI) regarding one of the children they cared for, an investigation was carried out and Mr and Mrs C were deregistered as foster carers. Mr C complained that the council failed to follow procedures in relation to the CPI and the deregistration.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, in relation to the CPI procedures, it was unclear as to whether one or two social workers should conduct interviews with children. We also found that the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland was not followed as Mr and Mrs C were not provided with information about the concern at the earliest possibility. There was also not a clear record regarding the risks and benefits of moving the children from the placement. We further found that the CPI took too long to conclude, and that the council did not ensure that Mr and Mrs C were aware of their ability to access independent support and advice throughout the investigation. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the deregistration, we found that the council had reasonably followed procedures and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the foster carer agreement documents had not been reviewed or updated throughout Mr and Mrs C's time as foster carers, and we made a recommendation to the council on this matter.

Finally, Mr C complained about the council's handling of his complaint. We found that the council had failed to deal with his complaint in a reasonable manner as timescales were not met, and at various points Mr C was given incorrect information about the complaints process. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Given that the council had stated that they were updating the foster carer agreements with a section on complaints, we asked for evidence of this being approved and implemented, but did not make any further recommendations on complaints handling.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to reasonably follow procedures in relation to the child protection investigation; and for failing to reasonably follow procedures in relation to complaints handling. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at: www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• It should be clear whether one or two social workers will conduct Child Protection Investigation interviews.
• Actions taken with regards to allegations made in placements should be in line with the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland.
• A clear record should be maintained clarifying both the risks and benefits of ending a placement following an allegation, before a decision is taken.
• CPI's should be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
• The council should ensure that foster carers are made aware of their ability to have access to independent support and advice following an allegation.
• The contents of fostering agreements should be reviewed at intervals by the authorities and any proposed changes or additions explained and discussed with carers.

Summary

Mr C was admitted to hospital following a stroke. In order to prepare for his discharge, the council arranged for a homecare service to be put in place. Due to his level of personal savings, Mr C was advised that he would be required to pay the full amount of his care. Mr C complained to the council that he was given the incorrect information in relation to his care costs and that the council unreasonably invoiced him for a larger amount of care costs than he was previously advised.

The council acknowledged they provided Mr C with the wrong information about the cost of his care package on a number of occasions, and they apologised for this. However, as Mr C signed a document to indicate he understood he would be required to pay the full cost of his care, the council considered he should still be liable to pay the full cost of his care.

We took independent social work advice. It is not disputed that Mr C was required to pay the full cost of his care; however, we considered whether it was reasonable that the council insisted Mr C should pay the full charge. Our investigation found that the council failed to provide Mr C with clear written information about what his care costs would be from the outset. Mr C was wrongly informed that his weekly care charge was his monthly care charge. We also considered it was unreasonable that the council took almost eight months to resolve the issue and inform Mr C of his correct weekly charge. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should reconsider their decision not to reduce care home costs in light of the failings identified in this investigation.

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

• The council should take steps to improve their processes by ensuring that more accurate information is provided at the outset and that the invoice is issued more promptly after the financial assessment is signed.

Summary

Mr C complained about the manner in which the social work department communicated with him and his wife regarding the removal of their children from the family home. Mr C also complained the child protection investigation was inappropriate, the investigation was not thorough, and social work were over critical of how the parents disciplined their children. The council were of the view that they were working with the parents and that the placement of the children was on a voluntary basis. They said delays in holding a child protection case conference was due to a criminal investigation which was on-going into the matter. They advised that the children were placed appropriately following assessments of the children's grandparents and they had no concerns about the placement.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council unreasonably failed to follow their procedures in relation to child protection concerns. We found that there was no evidence that a careful assessment was carried out in respect of the family friend that the children were initially placed with (and removed from shortly after) and therefore it was unclear how much confidence social work could have had that the parents would have cooperated with the measures. We found there was no evidence that appropriate paperwork had been completed. We did note that there was an appropriate assessment of the grandparents despite the fact that the children had not seen them in a number of years. However, we noted that the placement with the grandparents was treated as an emergency placement which would suggest that kinship care procedures should have been implemented but this was not done. In any case, there was no evidence of any looked after and accommodated child reviews being carried out, even if it had been. We considered that the reasons given for the delay in the child protection case conference were unreasonable as this could have been progressed regardless of any criminal case. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C, and his wife, for not sharing enough detail about their concerns so that he could make an informed decision regarding voluntary measures, and failing to carry out a careful assessment of the initial placement. The council should apologise for the misjudged use of section 25 and for the failure to follow appropriate procedures and timescales with respect to the investigation of concerns, and the requirements to have appropriate plans in place for the children. 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:

• That social work act in accordance with the Looked After And Accommodated (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and hold LAAC reviews within 72 hours of a child being moved to an emergency placement and reviews before the expiry of six weeks from the date a child is moved to an emergency placement.
• That kindship care assessments are commenced within three days of a child's placement, in accordance with the council's Social Work Child Protection Procedures (paragraph 2.8.1).
• Child protection case conferences should be convened with 21 days in accordance with the council's Social Work Child Protection Procedures paragraph 5.9.1.
• The council should ensure that it complies with paragraph 2.11 of their Social Work Child Protection Procedures.