Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to respond to complaints about anti-social behaviour and repairs over many years. She also complained that the council had not handled her complaint reasonably.

We found that the council had failed to act on reports of disrepair over a four year period. We also found that the council's complaint investigation had not acknowledged this, or apologised for any failings. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the failure to take action following reports of disrepair and for their failure to handle her complaint reasonably. The apology should meet thestandards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available atwww.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The council should review their procedures for monitoring repair work to ensure it is monitored for completion.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council's complaints handling system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified, and that they are using the learning from complaints to inform service development and improvement (where appropriate).

Summary

Mr C complained that the social work department unreasonably failed to act when he made reports of risk to his children, and that their arrangements for him to have access to his children were unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that in relation to the council's response to Mr C's reports of risk to his children, whilst they had been responsive to these reports and had taken reasonable action in the majority of instances, on one instance they had changed their plans for following up a report without recording the reasons why. We further found that on one occasion a discussion between staff in which decisions were made regarding action to be taken hadn't been recorded; and that there were some delays in signing off on a child protection case conference record and implementing one of the actions agreed at the case conference. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the council's arrangements for Mr C to have access to his children, we found that the council had reasonably assessed Mr C and his children, encouraged Mr C to suggest activities, and ensured they had enough notice from all parties for contact to go ahead. We found that the council's handling of this matter was reasonable and, therefore, 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 record why the plan for following up one instance of his report of risk to his children was changed, failing to document a discussion between the social worker and child protection coordinator and the delay in implementing one of the actions agreed at the child protection case conference. 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:

• When plans for follow-up are changed, the reasons for this should be recorded.
• Discussions regarding cases between staff members in which decisions are made should be documented.
• Deadlines as stipulated in the Child Protection Procedures and Guidance should be adhered to.
• Actions agreed at child protection case conferences should be taken forwards in a timely manner.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to reasonably consider her personal circumstances when determining her request to tarmac a grass space near her home. Ms C said that the existing layout was difficult for her to access as a wheelchair user and that the council's refusal led her to pay for a section of the pavement outside her home to be tarmacked at her own expense. The council refused to reimburse Ms C for this work on the grounds that the street is a designated shared space which means the street layout is shared equally between pedestrians and motor vehicles. The council held the view that an individual assessment of Ms C's needs was not required and they confirmed that the ramp in the road that Ms C needed to cross to leave her street was within the allowed specifications set out in the relevant regulations. Ms C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in equal opportunities and diversity. We found that the council had appropriately considered that Ms C's street was a shared space. However, we noted that Ms  C clearly requested assistance in her application for minor works and we considered that the council should have provided her with the appropriate advice at that stage - that social work could conduct an assessment of need to establish if support or adaptations were required. We concluded that the council should have fully assessed Ms C's circumstances under the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Equality Act 2010. The council failed to recognise these concerns and made a decision that Ms C did not require a reasonable adjustment to be considered without properly assessing her individual circumstances. 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 consider her personal circumstances when determining her request to tarmac a grass space near her home. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.
• The council should consider refunding the charge incurred for the Minor Roadworks Consent as a gesture of goodwill for failing to respond appropriately to Ms C's request for assistance on the application. If the council do not consider this would be appropriate, they should provide us with an explanation why.

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

• When a member of the public raises concerns about accessibility to footways on publicly adopted roads, the council should consider the individual's personal circumstances and whether any reasonable adjustments are required in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty and the Equality Act 2010.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to address concerns he raised about building works carried out by his neighbour. Mr C felt that the council's failure to take action against his neighbour had allowed the retention of a defective building which had, over time, resulted in water damage to his property.

The council required Mr C's neighbour to submit a retrospective planning application to allow for the works which had been carried out to be assessed. The retrospective planning application was granted planning permission with two conditions, one of which related to the provision of appropriate guttering and rainwater goods to ensure rainwater did not discharge onto Mr C's property. Compliance with this condition was required within three months, however, Mr  C's neighbour failed to comply with this condition in this time and a planning enforcement case was opened. The council carried out further investigations and closed their enforcement case. A number of years later, the council wrote to Mr  C notifying him that his building was considered to be defective and requiring him to carry out works to remedy these defects. Mr C complained that these works were required because of the council's failure to enforce appropriate installation of rainwater goods on his neighbour's development, as required by the condition of the earlier planning permission.

We found that the council unreasonably closed the enforcement case without ensuring that Mr C's neighbour had carried out the works required to comply with the planning condition. We considered that the delay between Mr C initially raising his concerns about non-compliance and the council finally ensuring compliance years later was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to take timely and effective action to ensure compliance with condition two of the planning application. 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 must ensure that when it becomes clear an applicant has failed to comply with a planning condition within the required time-frame, they take the necessary steps, including formal enforcement action if necessary, to ensure the requirements of the condition are met. They should ensure this action is taken in a timely manner, in line with the guidance detailed in Planning Circular 10/2009.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) about a number of matters in relation to social work involvement with their family. We took independent advice from a child and family social work adviser.

In relation to a social work assessment, Mr C was unhappy with the level of assessment of Mr A and his partner that was carried out. We found that the council had a good reason not to complete a full assessment of Mr A and his partner and we did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C was also unhappy about a delay in completing the assessment. We noted that the council had upheld Mr C's complaint about the delay in completing the assessments. We found that the council had issued a briefing note to staff regarding this issue. We upheld the complaint and gave the council feedback about further good practice for learning from complaints.

Mr C also raised concern about a social worker communicating sensitive information by phone rather than at a meeting. The council upheld the complaint and issued a briefing to staff about communication. Subsequently, the issue reoccurred and the council agreed to amend guidance to staff. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his request for a change in a member of staff involved in his family's case. We found that there was a lengthy delay in the council responding to Mr C. We noted that the response did not come from the officer who made the decision and no explanation for the decision was provided. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C further raised concerns about a number of aspects of complaint handling. We found that the council had failed to apologise to Mr C for the use of inappropriate language (an aspect of the complaint they had upheld) and had failed to fully investigate part of Mr C's complaint. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to share with the family a concern about the wellbeing of the children that was identified by their school. We found that it would have been good practice to have shared this information. However, we were unable to conclude that the council acted unreasonably and we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained about a delay in the school sharing assessments of the children with Mr A, when it had been agreed this would happen. The council acknowledged that there was no good reason for the delay. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A and Mr C for the delay in the completion of the assessments and the communication in relation to this, not arranging a meeting to share sensitive information, the way they handled Mr C's request for another member of staff, the way Mr C's concern about the member of staff was handled, the use of inappropriate language, not investigating part of Mr C's complaint fully and unreasonably delaying sharing assessments. 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:

• Where a service user or their representative requests a change in the staff involved in their case, this should be considered and appropriately responded to by the officer making the decision within a reasonable timescale with reasons given for their decision.
• Action points from a meeting should be completed within an agreed period of time.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• An investigation should establish all the facts relevant to the points made in the complaint and to give the customer a full, objective and proportionate response that represents the final position.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his correspondence about planning and enforcement and other issues in relation to land near his home.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, in general, the council had tried to address the issues Mr C raised in his correspondence. However, we identified a number of failings:

• the council did not provide an adequate explanation to Mr C about their delay in progressing matters in relation to a planning breach

• they did not advise him that he should notify them of a planning breach through their electronic enforcement system

• their response could have been clearer in relation to whether action that was being taken would resolve the enforcement issues

• their response incorrectly stated that the enforcement case must be suspended until planning applications had been determined

• they did not provide an adequate response to his comments about aggregation in relation to procurement

• they should have taken further action in relation to comments made in advertising by one of their contractors

• they failed to keep him updated on the delay in responding to his complaint.

In view of these failings, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in relation to the handling of his correspondence to them. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.
• Investigate and provide a response to Mr C's comments about aggregation.

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

• It should be clear from the Council's Enforcement Charter that anyone who did not make the initial complaint regarding a breach of consent, will not be kept informed of actions taken by the council to address that breach or of the outcomes. The Charter should provide a link to the enforcement register so that customers can track progress of any enforcement action themselves.

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 complained that the council had unreasonably responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council responded to and investigated her reports of anti-social behaviour but found that the noise witnessed was everyday living noise, and therefore, was not something they could take formal action against. The council suggested mediation as an option to resolve the conflict. We noted that the council followed their process in responding to Ms C's complaints, with the exception of closing the cases in writing and categorising the complaints. The council made contact with Ms C after each report, were clear about potential outcomes, liaised with relevant agencies and investigated Ms C's reports of anti-social noise. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

We did provide feedback to the council regarding closing cases in writing and categorising complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's appointment system for electrical and gas safety checks. In particular, that the council unreasonably attempted to access his property and did not offer flexibility over the time and dates of their appointments. Mr C also complained that the council failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into his complaints and that their communcation was poor.

We found that the council letters lacked clarity and gave incorrect information that the safety checks would be considered emergency repairs. We noted that the response to Mr C's complaint was delayed with vague communication and that there was a lack of referral on correspondence to the next stage of the complaints process. We also found that the council lacked flexibility in their approach to the safety checks and failed to follow their processes, incorrectly attempting to access Mr C's property when they had not exhausted all previous steps outlined in their process. Therefore, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unacceptable delay in responding to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in theSPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Review the content of appointment letters for annual gas and electricty checks to accurately reflect the process of inspection, the process when access becomes a problem, and the specific time or time window of the scheduled appointment.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Communication regarding a complaint should clearly explain the stage which is being responded to. Staff should also ensure customers have been appropriately referred to the next stage in the process at that point.

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

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow their procedures in response to reports that a tenant had breached their tenancy agreement due to anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had taken steps in response to the reports they had received. The council were reliant on neighbours to inform them of incidents at the time so that could build an accurate picture of the type and frequency of behaviour occurring. In the absence of further reports and evidence of anti-social behaviour, the council was not able to take legal action to recover the tenancy. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably charged for additional works he had not agreed to, or been advised of, following on from his initial agreement for smaller works to be carried out by the council to his property. Mr C said that the increased charge was unreasonable.

We found that, having decided to charge Mr C for the additional works, the council did not follow their own procedures in how they authorised, inspected and charged for the repair or communicated with Mr C. There was also a delay of six months after completing the works before the council queried the increased invoice from the council's building maintenance division, and invoiced Mr C. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not following the correct process. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Consider whether a deduction of the administrative charge is appropriate in light of the failings identified.

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

• Ensure works invoices which have increased substantially are queried within a reasonable timescale.
• Ensure invoices are issued to owner occupiers within a reasonable timescale.

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.