Local Government

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.

Summary

Ms C runs a hostel and complained about noise coming from a nearby road depot. Ms C complained to the council but felt they did not undertake an appropriate assessment of the noise from the depot. She wanted the council to investigate and take enforcement action.

The council said that they had taken reasonable steps to investigate the complaint, stating that this was carried out in accordance with their enforcement policy. The council's position was that the site visits carried out by the environmental health officer, and subsequent interviews with staff, represented an appropriate response. They concluded there was no statutory nuisance and therefore said it was not appropriate to undertake enforcement action.

We noted that the council's website sets out the type of actions they will take upon receipt of a noise complaint. This includes asking for a noise diary to be maintained for one to two weeks, then assessing the written evidence to determine the scale and extent of the problem. Ms C had not been asked to keep a noise diary, and when the environmental health manager reviewed the actions of the investigating officer they stated it could not be judged whether the noise at the depot would constitute a nuisance without a noise diary to assist in identifying the times, duration and frequency of noise issues.

We found that there was a lack of clear evidence of the investigation which was undertaken by the council. We also found there was a lack of evidence to support the decision that the noise was not a statutory nuisance. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apololgise to Ms C for failing to take reasonable steps to investigate the complaints about noise. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Contact Ms C to enquire whether the noise is an ongoing problem. If it is, liaise with her regarding the use of a noise diary, in line with council policy, and thereafter determine whether the noise constitutes a statutory nuisance.

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

• Staff should be clear about how to apply council policy and procedures when complaints about noise are made.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's actions when she reported concerns about her child (Child A) to the social work department on several occasions.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that in relation to the first time Ms C raised concerns, the records were inadequate to determine whether the decisions made by the council were reasonable or not. We found that in relation to the second time Ms C raised concerns, the council should have carried out further investigation and it was unreasonable that they did not. We found that when the council was contacted by a health board in relation to concerns about Child A, they failed to assess the matter in full and therefore failed to follow national guidance on 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC). We considered that it unclear from the records why the council took no further action at this point. Overall, we found that there had been a failure to properly record what happened, assessments, and follow-up. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained about the council's communication with her and their handling of her complaint. We found that the complaint responses to Ms C lacked empathy and understanding. We were also critical that the council's complaint process did not identify the failings in social work practice and failed to acknowledge the significance of poor record-keeping in this case. We considered this to be unreasonable and 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 take reasonable action on the concerns raised about Child A; and that the communication with Ms C and handling of her complaint was unreasonable. 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:

• Record-keeping should be clear and accurate. Details of interviews and assessments should be recorded, and reasons for any decisions should be clear.
• Reports of concern about children and young people should be acted upon appropriately and in line with guidance.
• National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland and the National Framework for Risk Assessment should be followed in relation to assessing risk and linking this with GIRFEC framework.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be appropriately empathetic and understanding.
• The council's complaints handling system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified and the significance of these failings acknowledged, in order to enable learning from complaints to inform service development and improvement.

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.