Local Government

Summary

Mrs C's child (Child A) was injured by another child while at school. Mrs C said that she was not contacted until around two hours after the incident and complained that the school failed to act in an appropriate and reasonable manner. Mrs C was also unhappy that the school had recorded Child A as being a participant in a fight rather than being assaulted and that the level of support provided to Child A after their return to school was unreasonable.

In their responses to Mrs C, the council indicated that the priority after the incident was to establish what had happened. Their responses were unclear, however, in terms of whether they understood Child A to have been displaying signs of a head injury after the incident. The council stated that the school followed NHS advice on head injuries and provided us with a copy of this. However, we noted that there was no direct reference to the NHS advice in staff statements, incident reports or the council's response to Mrs C. In their response to Mrs C, the council acknowledged that they should have handled things differently and did not contact her soon enough. They also stated that they had a new procedure in place in respect of head injuries at school. However, the evidence we reviewed showed a confused account of events and, as a result, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

In respect of the school recording the incident as a fight, we considered this reasonable. We found that the school accepted that Child A had been assaulted and made clear that the reference to a fight was in relation to what lead up to the assault. The account recorded by the school was based on multiple accounts of what happened. In addition to this, we saw nothing in the evidence provided to us that indicated that the school held the view that Child A was partially or wholly at fault for the way the incident escalated. Finally, the council indicated that they were happy for additional information Mrs C wanted to record to be appended, if appropriate. We concluded that the school and council provided a reasonable justification for why the incident was recorded this way and did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to the support Child A received after their return to school, we found that the school had made appropriate arrangements and that Child A did not take up everything that was offered. We acknowledged that a laptop had not been made immediately available for Child A but noted that this was addressed in a phone call with Mrs C and one was provided the next day. Finally, we considered that a risk assessment had been completed and reviewed appropriately. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for not taking reasonable action following reports that Child A had sustained a head injury, clearly acknowledging where there has been fault. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to transfer a drain serving his property to a water provider. He also complained that they had failed to keep proper records and that they had failed to handle his complaints correctly.

We found that the council did not have a statutory obligation to transfer private drains to the water provider. We noted that they had asked the water provider to adopt the drain in question into the national network, but they declined to do so. We considered that the council had no obligation to keep records relating to private drains and had responded to Mr C's complaints reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the assessment and subsequent care package offered in respect of his son (Mr A). Mr C moved from another local authority area where he was in receipt of a package of care for Mr A. Following an assessment of Mr  A's needs after he moved to Edinburgh, Mr A was awarded a significantly reduced budget. Mr C disagreed with the amount of funding provided and complained that there was a lack of transparency about the assessment and decision-making process.

The council explained that different local authorities will have different eligibility criteria, therefore, it is likely that they will not receive the same level of funding. The council also acknowledged that the package of care perhaps did not meet Mr A's needs and that they could have elaborated further on the reason for their decision.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We did not find any evidence of maladministration in the fact that the council had a different eligibility criteria and threshold for funding compared to the other local authority. However, we did find that there was a lack of transparency in terms of the council's assessment and decision-making process and that this was not in line with national guidance. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We noted that the council have taken reasonable steps to review and improve their procedures and they also reviewed Mr A's assessment, therefore, we did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C was granted planning permission to create an extension to her home for her father (Mr A) after he was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. Mr A sold his own house and the money raised was transferred to Mrs C to fund the extension works. Mr A's illness later worsened and he experienced an emergency detention in hospital and was later discharged to a care home.

The council said that the value of the capital from the sale of Mr A's house should be treated as notional capital in his financial assessment which meant that he was to be regarded as self funding for his care home accommodation. Mrs C disputed the decision but the council's original decision was upheld. Mrs C complained that not all relevant facts had been taken into account by the council and as a result Mr A was considered to have deliberately deprived himself of capital. She also complained that the council had not provided her with a clear reasoned explanation of their decision in terms of the Scottish Government Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidance (CRAG).

It is not within our power to review the decision or overturn it. We can only look to see whether the decision taken was on reasonable grounds, taking all the relevant facts into account, in line with relevant guidance. We found that the council had considered all the information Mrs C provided, made reference to CRAG and obtained legal advice. We found no evidence of failures in the council's decision making and, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, we did find that the council had not provided a reasonable explanation to Mrs C for how they reached their decision. We upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the failure to provide a reasoned decision in relation to Mr A's CRAG assessment. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• In accordance with CRAG, reasoned decisions should be provided after an assessment has been made.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably charged her for repairs to her former tenancy.

We found that it was reasonable for the council to charge Ms C for the repairs. The council had followed their procedure, although there was a delay in issuing the invoice. Ms C was also informed in writing in the tenancy agreement and during the termination process that she could be invoiced for rechargeable repairs identified after the pre-termination inspection. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to her appeal for the charged repairs. We found that the council's response provided photographic evidence, referred to their recharge procedure and Ms C's tenancy agreement to support their view that the charges were due. The council provided a reasonable explanation of how they have come to their view and offered a payment plan to pay the charge in instalments. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's failure to follow the procurement process when seeking contracts for works. Mr C stated that he did not receive requests for tenders when, according to the procurement process in place, he should have been invited to provide a quotation for the jobs. Mr C provided details of several contracts which he considered were unfairly awarded to someone else, without the proper process being followed.

We found that, in relation to one of the contracts, Mr C stated that the council unreasonably included additional works under the original tender. We confirmed that this office was not permitted to investigate the terms of concluded commercial contracts and whether or not this additional work was covered under the existing terms.

In relation to another contract, Mr C stated that three contractors were not contacted for quotes as required for the value of the contract. The council were unable to provide evidence that the procurement process had been followed in line with the value of the contract. However, we also looked at several other works instructed by the council and noted that in relation to these, the council followed the procurement requirements in relation to the value of the contracts. Overall, we considered that the council had acted reasonably and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In our feedback to the council, we highlighted the one instance where we considered the process had not been followed for a low value contract and asked the council to note the importance of adhering to the legislation.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to investigate the issue of strong odours which were affecting him at his place of work. These were coming from a nearby restaurant and separate smells from a sewer pipe at a neighbouring hotel. Mr C said that it was the council's responsibility to ensure that both the restaurant and hotel were complying with health and safety regulations.

The council responded by advising that they had investigated the matter and attended the restaurant who agreed to take action to reduce the smell. The council felt that this resolved this particular issue. They also contacted the hotel owner who confirmed that they were aware of the issue and were working with the water provider to resolve this. The council held the view that the matter was in hand, and as they did not have authority over the sewerage pipes, they would not take any further action. Following continued complaints, the council visited Mr C's place of work but did not identify any smells that would be classed as a Statutory Nuisance and therefore could not issue an Abatement Order. They also liaised with the water provider to encourage the necessary work to be completed. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us.

We found that the council had responded to the issues appropriately and promptly. The council remained largely involved in trying to resolve the issues by assisting the relevant parties involved despite having limited authority. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his complaint. We found that some of the language used in their response to Mr  C was inappropriate and they failed to advise him on how to escalate his complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The council acknowledged these failings and have already taken action to prevent issues occurring again in the future.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the upset caused by the confrontational language in their response and the failure to advise him correctly of the next stage of the complaints process and for failing to identify these errors in their stage two complaint response. 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 C complained that his late mother (Miss A), who stayed in a council owned care home, was not provided with appropriate care in relation to monitoring her prior to and after a fall in which she broke her arm. He also complained that the council failed to appropriately communicate with him regarding Miss A's condition.

In response to Mr C's complaints, the council identified that there had been some failings in recording. They provided us with an action plan for improvements to be made, and a new policy in relation to falls. On reviewing the council's policies and guidance alongside Miss A's notes, we found that when she fell and complained of pain in her arm, there was a failure to immediately seek urgent medical opinion as per the council's policy. We also found that the falls risk assessment had not been reviewed as often as was specified by guidance. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, however, considered that the council's new falls guidance would, if followed, prevent a recurrence of these events.

In relation to communication with Mr C about Miss A's condition, we found that Mr C was not Miss A's recorded next of kin and that there was no policy that required Mr C to be contacted by the council. We did not uphold 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 follow their policies on care after a fall and falls risk assessment. 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 follow their policies on care after a fall and falls risk assessment.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to reasonably record and investigate concerns about bullying in line with their obligations. Mr C said that staff at his child's (Child A) primary school failed to apply their anti-bullying policy and guidelines, specifically that they failed to identify bullying behaviour.

The council confirmed there was evidence of bullying behaviour. They advised each allegation of bullying was investigated and the head teacher fed back findings to Mr C. The council also outlined other steps they had taken to support Child A. The council acknowledged that not all incidents of bullying had been updated on their system. They apologised to Mr C for this and advised that this matter had been addressed with all head teacher's within the local area to ensure all allegations of bullying are formally recorded regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

We found that the council's policy does not require the school to take specific actions. It requires them to take some action based on the individual circumstances of the incident(s). We considered that the school had been responsive to Mr C's concerns and explored a number of options available to them to address the bullying behaviours reported and support Child A. However, while the investigation by the school was reasonable, the recording of information was not. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint but did not make any recommendations due to the action already taken by the council.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to appropriately safeguard Mrs A and that they failed to carry out an appropriate adult support and protection investigation for Mrs A when she was hospitalised as a result of a fall.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council's safeguarding of Mrs A was appropriate, as it respected her wishes and promoted her independence. We further found that when an adult support and protection concern was raised for Mrs A, the council considered this, liaised with appropriate individuals and services, and closed the enquiry. We found that this was reasonable, as whilst Mrs A was in hospital she was deemed not to be at risk of harm. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.