Local Government

Summary

Mr C owned a flat in a block of properties. The council also owned flats in the same block of properties. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs to a communal path.

We found that all owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to communicate reasonably with him about the communal path repairs. We found that the majority of the council's communication was reasonable. However, we found that the council's communication with Mr C about the availability of an inspection report should have been clearer. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not making it clear that an inspection report was not available. 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 should communicate clearly with owner-occupiers regarding the availability of inspection reports for assessed communal repairs.

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 secondary school his child (Child A) attended. He said that after his family had told the school of an incident which Child A had witnessed, the school failed to communicate reasonably with him regarding their progress and wellbeing. We found that the evidence showed that following the school being informed of the incident, this was appropriately discussed with Child A, and teachers were reasonably alert to any change in their behaviour or wellbeing. We determined that as there did not appear to be any cause for concern, there was no need for the school to communicate with Mr C. We also noted that Mr C and his family could have discussed any concerns they had with the school and they had appropriate opportunity to do so. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that following Child A's exam results, there was an unreasonable failure to communicate with him. We found that whilst the majority of communication was reasonable and timely, there was a failure to alert Mr C of the exam board's position on the potential to apply in retrospect for 'exceptional circumstances'. On this basis, 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 failing to alert him to the Scottish Qualification Authority's position on exceptional circumstances in a timely manner. 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:

• Communication regarding post-results matters should be timely, open, and transparent.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take action within a reasonable timeframe to investigate the concerns he reported about his child, including the delay in the council speaking to his child about the concerns.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, as Mr C's concern was not dealt with as a child protection investigation, there are not specific timescales that are required to be met. In light of this, the actions taken by the council and the timescales for the actions taken were not unreasonable in the circumstances. However, we found that there were delays in recording the referral Mr C made to the council and the action taken by them in response to Mr C's referral. We also found that there was no contemporaneous record of the decision not to progress Mr C's referral while the allocated social worker was on leave. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that the council's response did not address a particular aspect of Mr C's complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council failed to handle his complaint reasonably.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to address all the points of his 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:

• Decisions not to progress referrals when an allocated social worker is on leave should be recorded clearer.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should address all the issues raised. This is in accordance with the model complaints handling procedure: www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/sites/valuingcomplaints/files/resources/SW-Model-CHP.pdf  

Summary

Mr C complained about works carried out by the council to lower the footway at his property to allow for access to his driveway. The council carried out works to drop the kerb, but did not lower the heel kerb. Mr C complained that, as a result of the council not lowering the heel kerb, his car grounded on the footpath. Mr C believed that the council should have dropped the heel kerb as part of the works. The council said that they had carried out works to specification and that they considered the issue was the level of the Mr C's driveway which was not their responsibility. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We requested the council's documentation with respect to their inspection and agreed specification for the works. The council were not able to provide documentation relating to their inspection, even though they had visited the site on a number of occasions. We concluded that the council had failed to appropriately document their inspection and the specified works. The council confirmed during our investigation that they no longer offered to carry out such works and that, in an effort to conclude matters and in acknowledgement of the inconvenience, they agreed to waive their fee for the works carried out. We considered that the council should re-inspect Mr C's driveway, document their findings with respect to the works that should have been carried out at the time and, if further works were required, they should liaise with Mr C to arrange for these to be completed. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for their failure to document their assessment of whether the heel kerb should have been lowered. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The council should carry out a further inspection of the footway and driveway to determine whether, at the time the works were completed (prior to the installation of the gravel grid system on the driveway), the heel kerb should have been dropped to provide level access. If they determine the kerb should be dropped, the council should arrange, in consultation with Mr C, to drop the kerb and pavement to the original driveway levels.

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, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms C complained that the council failed to handle Ms A's request for kinship care allowance in an appropriate or reasonable manner. When Ms A lived in another local authority area, she was considered to be the kinship carer for her grandchildren and was paid kinship allowances. After she moved to the Midlothian area, Ms A approached the council to request kinship allowances. The council reviewed the household circumstances and concluded that Ms A was not the primary carer for the children. As a result, no kinship allowances was paid. Ms C complained that the council failed to handle Ms A's request for kinship care allowance in an appropriate or reasonable manner. Ms A also felt that she should have been treated as the main carer for the children.

We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work. The adviser noted that it was a complex situation due to the number of local authorities involved and the frequent movement of the children and family during the period of time the complaint relates to. However, based on the information available, we found that it was appropriate for the council to carry out a review to establish the caring arrangements at the time. We also considered that the conclusions reached by the council appeared to be reasonable and based on appropriate evidence. Finally, we found that the evidence indicated that Ms A was treated fairly by the council during this process.

We recognised that Ms A disputed the council's understanding of the family circumstances. However, we concluded that the council had acted reasonably and reached conclusions that were justifiable and based on appropriate evidence. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably threatened her with legal and police action after she had written comments on social media about one of their officers. The council provided relevant documentation and information about their zero tolerance policy. They said that they had consulted their own legal team and requested that Ms C remove the comments referred to, and should she fail to do so, they would report the matter to the police and their legal team.

We found there was no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in the circumstances; there was no threat of legal action. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about her child (Child A)'s school. Ms C complained about the school's communication with her and about decisions made about Child A's education. Ms C said she felt excluded from decision-making and communication about Child A and that there was a lack of engagement by the school with the Children's Hearing arranged for them. Ms C also complained that the council failed to thoroughly investigate and respond to her complaints.

In response to our investigation the council explained they found no evidence that the school informed Ms C of decisions about Child A's education, nor was there any information recorded about the reasons why these decisions were made. The council advised they recognised that the issue of invitations to hearings and meetings was an issue and explained that they had developed a system whereby there would be a single point of contact and invitations would be acknowledged once received.

We found that the council failed to demonstrate that they carried out a thorough investigation of Ms C's original complaints and to respond to all of her complaints. The council could not provide evidence that they communicated with Ms C about the decisions made regarding Child A's education. While the council upheld part of Ms C's complaint, we noted that they did not provide an apology or any acknowledgement of the impact their failings had on Ms C or Child A. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for their failure to communicate regarding Child A and for their failure to properly investigate and respond to the 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:

• The council should ensure that systems are in place to ensure a student's records are maintained and updated to include details of significant decisions.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff have the knowledge and skills to identify and register complaints in line with the board's complaint handling procedure. Identify any training needs to ensure staff fully and appropriately respond to complaints.

Summary

Mrs C became an informal carer to her two grandchildren when they were removed from their mother's care at the council's request. Mrs C complained to the council about the support they provided to her as an informal carer. Mrs C said that she did not feel the council took seriously the concerns she was raising about the children's wellbeing and behaviour, that they did not recognise her own personal circumstances, such as her own health needs and that they delayed in providing financial assistance.

The council explained that Mrs C received support from a family support worker and that a nursery placement was provided; however they acknowledged that there was a delay in providing financial assistance and in arranging the nursery placement due to it being in another local authority area.

We took independent social work advice. The adviser queried the appropriateness of the statutory powers that the council chose to use when they decided to remove the children from their mother's care. While we noted that Mrs C received support from a family support worker and advice by telephone, we considered it was unreasonable that the allocated social worker did not visit Mrs C and the children until almost three weeks after they were placed in her care. We concluded that the council failed to take a proactive approach to planning the support Mrs C might require and overall, they failed to provide appropriate and timely support. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations for learning and improvement.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to provide proactive support to her and offer her the opportunity of a meeting to discuss any outstanding concerns. 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 should reflect on the findings of this investigation, identify appropriate further learning, and feedback to staff in a supportive manner.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to handle a planning application reasonably and failed to handle her complaint appropriately.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had met their statutory obligations to make information about the application publicly available and had reasonably exercised their professional judgement in assessing the application. We found that the council's actions were reasonable and did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we found that there was an inconsistency in the report on the planning application which had not been identified by the council's complaint investigation. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and provided feedback to the council. However, we noted that this error did not make a substantive difference to the outcome of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A). Miss A resides in a privately owned care home. Mr C complained that the council failed to assess the suitability of another service user before placing them in the care home, and later failed to remove the service user from the care home in a timeous way when issues became apparent.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the actions of the council in assessing the service user's suitability for the care home were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also found that, whilst it took some time for the service user to be removed from the care home once issues were identified, the council had done all they reasonably could to minimise the issues and move the service user in a prompt manner. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.