Local Government

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.

Summary

Ms C's home is accessed along a single-track lane. Ms C complained that contractors' vehicles, involved in works on behalf of the council, obstructed the lane on a number of occasions. She complained that this was a contravention of the masterplan, in terms of which the lane must not be used by contractor vehicles.

The council said that where access had been required via the lane, contractors had been advised to take due consideration of the residential surroundings, and to notify residents in advance where construction vehicle access was planned. They provided copies of email correspondence regarding the use of the lane, which evidenced that some efforts were being made to minimise disruption to residents.

We found that although the council had made some efforts to address Ms C's concerns, there were still ongoing issues regarding the use of the lane. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to address her concerns about obstruction of the lane by contractors' vehicles. 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:

• Contractors must be aware that they cannot obstruct access to the lane.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Council staff should clearly record reports of obstruction and also note the action taken to address each incident.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had taken an unreasonable amount of time to mark an advisory disabled parking space at his home, and that the councils handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the councils handling of both matters was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Ms A) that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organisation will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned).

The council are entitled to apply their UAP in appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision, rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. We considered the council's UAP and the actions they took in Ms A's case.

We found that the council's letter to Ms A, restricting her contact with them, failed to include details of the appeals process, failed to make it clear what behaviour they considered unacceptable that led to them apply the UAP, and failed to explain the extent of the UAP restriction. The council also failed to respond to Ms A's appeal against the UAP restriction.

There was no contemporaneous record or audit trail to explain the rationale for not issuing a warning letter to Ms A prior to invoking the UAP restriction, and not reviewing Ms A's restriction at a bi-annual meeting as per the council's UAP. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms A for failing to include the details of the appeals process, failing to respond to Ms A's appeal and the failure to review Ms A's unacceptable actions restriction at a bi-annual meeting. 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:

• Letters restricting a person's contact with the council should include details of the appeals process, details of the behaviour that is considered to be unacceptable and explain the extent of the restriction.
• Appeals against an unacceptable actions restriction should be responded to in accordance with s7.2 of the Unacceptable Actions by Customers Policy.
• Clear records should be kept to explain the rationale for not issuing a warning letter and for not reviewing a restriction at a bi-annual meeting as detailed in the Unacceptable Actions by Customers Policy.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were foster parents for a young child (Child A) with additional needs. Child A was moved to a residential care home by the council. During their time there, Mr and Mrs C raised concerns about Child A's care and treatment. The council investigated the concerns and concluded there was no evidence of criminality and that the marks founds on Child A were consistent with the reports that they had injured themself through play.

Mr and Mrs C disagreed with the conclusions of the investigation. We investigated whether the council responded appropriately to the child protection concerns that they raised.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council responded promptly to the concerns raised by undertaking a high volume of visits and adopting a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation. However, we found that there was a significant delay in obtaining the incident reports from the residential care home. These were required to be provided within 24 hours, and they were not provided until five weeks after the original request. We considered this delay to be unreasonable as the reports were required to inform important decision-making regarding the child protection investigation. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to appropriately respond to the child protection concerns raised by failing to obtain the incident reports 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:

• The council should remind care home staff and social work staff of the importance of recording incidents promptly and of obtaining the reports within a reasonable timescale.
• To enable further learning from the complaint, the council should identify the reason for the delay and advise SPSO of the outcome. This should include information about whether the reports were written retrospectively.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably failed to carry out parenting capacity assessments to establish whether Ms C was able to look after her child (Child A). Ms C also complained that the council failed to carry out reasonable assessments to inform decisions about Child A's care.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that decisions made regarding the parenting assessments were reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we noted that changes to the planned actions in relation to these assessments should have been discussed and recorded with 'Looked After Child' (LAC) review minutes, with the reasons recorded as to why the plan had changed.

We found that while the assessments of Child A's parents were reasonable, based on the information available, the kinship carer assessment was unreasonably delayed, which was a key assessment to inform future decisions about Child A's care. It was also found that not all LAC reviews were appropriately documented or carried out in a reasonable timescale. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the delay in the kinship carer assessment and the statutory LAC reviews being carried out. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/informationleaflets.

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

• A kinship care assessment should commence within three days of the placement and be concluded within 12 weeks.
• LAC reviews should be held within six weeks of the placement, then a further review three months from that date and then every six months thereafter.

Summary

Mr C is a kinship carer and he approached the council to apply for kinship care allowance. The council approved his application to the date of application; however, they did not agree to backdate his payment to the date that the Scottish Government introduced a change to the eligibility for kinship care assistance. The council explained they were not required to backdate the payment as the Scottish Government did not legislate on the matter and only issued guidance, therefore they had discretion as to whether to follow that guidance. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow national guidance when considering his request to backdate kinship care payments and that they failed to provide the appropriate information about entitlement to kinship care assistance in line with their obligations.

We found that while the council are required to consider the guidance, they do have discretion as to whether they apply it as it is not statutory legislation. We found that the council failed to provide contemporaneous evidence which they based their decision on to not backdate Mr C's application for kinship care assistance. The council only provided retrospective accounts of how those decisions were made. We considered that decisions about whether to follow Scottish Government guidance should be carefully documented and in this case it was not. We upheld this aspect of the complaint on the basis that the council failed to clearly record the rationale for their decision.

However, our investigation found that the council provided appropriate information about entitlement to kinship care assistance in line with their obligations when the Scottish Government introduced changes to the legislation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The council's policy about whether they should follow Scottish Government guidance on kinship care allowances should be considered for decision at an appropriate senior level, eg at Council Committee or by whichever means the council make such policy decisions.

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Following the review of their policy on whether to follow Scottish Government guidance, the council should reconsider requests for kinship care assistance to be backdated.