Local Government

Summary

C complained about the actions of the council in relation to repairs required at their home. They considered the communication, quality of repairs and time taken to carry out and fully resolve the repairs were unreasonable.

While it was noted that there were significant efforts made to seek to resolve the issues, and some delays were outwith the council’s control, overall, we considered the council failed to reasonably respond to repairs. While some repairs were completed in the target timescale, others were not, and for other repairs there was no record provided to indicate whether they were complete and no mechanism to escalate the situation where repeated attempts to repair the same fault were unsuccessful. As such we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to reasonably respond to C’s repair requests. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Ensure that the seven repair requests have now been completed.

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

• Have a system in place to ensure repairs information for each property is recorded in a way that is clear and accessible. Ideally this will also include a record of seeking verification from the tenant that they are also satisfied with the repair.
• Have a system in place to identify and respond to situations where multiple repairs have not resolved the issue.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Responses to complainants and the SPSO are thorough and complete, ideally in one response.

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

C complained about the council’s handling of allegations that their child made against them, including decisions taken to remove their child from the family home on the evening of the incident, but then considered safe to return the following day. C also complained about a lack of support for their family following the incident. C made a subsequent complaint about the council’s handling of disclosures made by their child to social workers regarding a previous overdose.

In response to the complaints, the council said that once a child protection issue was raised by C’s child, this was responded to quickly and in line with child protection procedures. Decisions about where C’s child should stay whilst police investigations were ongoing were taken in collaboration with the family and it was determined following a risk assessment that there was no grounds to require C’s child to stay away from the family home. The council explained the nature and purpose of follow up meetings.

With respect to disclosures made by C’s child that they had previously taken an overdose, the council said that the social worker’s professional opinion was that it was not necessary to pass this information on to the child’s parents, and instead recorded a note of the incident. The council did however acknowledge that there was no record of why the social worker had come to this determination and course of action.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that whenever information is provided concerning actual or alleged abuse, this must be investigated and we considered that actions taken by the council’s social worker to be reasonable in this regard. With respect to decision making around removing C’s child from the family home, whilst the circumstances are disputed, the records indicated that there were discussions with the family about the decision making in this regard and additional factors, including the lateness of the day, were taken into consideration. The approach in the circumstances was therefore considered to be reasonable.

With respect to C’s child returning to the family home the following day, we found that there was no immediate risk to C’s child should they stay at home and it was reasonable for them to return home the day following the incident. On this basis, we did not uphold C’s complaint about the appropriateness of the council’s Child Protection investigation.

In considering C’s concerns about the handling of their child's disclosure of a previous overdose, we acknowledged the council’s position that it may be appropriate in some circumstances not to share such information with a child’s parents, such as in circumstances where the child does not want the information shared. However, we found that there was no evidence of such a discussion having taken place, or of the reasoning behind decisions taken not to share this information with C or their partner. We therefore found that there was a failure by the social worker to record a discussion with C’s child and the reasons for not informing their parents of the overdose. On this basis, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and their partner for the issues highlighted. 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:

• That the council share this decision with the social work team with a view to reminding them of the importance of recording all discussions and decision making considerations in child protection case notes.

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

C complained following the council's decision to decline C’s request for financial kinship care assistance in respect of their grandchild (A). C complained that the council failed to adequately consider their eligibility when there was a change of circumstances in the family home and they became the primary carer for A.

In responding to C’s complaint, the council upheld their original decision to decline C’s request for kinship allowance on the grounds that the decision for A to reside with C had been a private family arrangement and that they had not formally placed A in C’s care. The council did acknowledge that conflicting information was given to C regarding their eligibility for kinship allowance, that the provision of information regarding eligibility on the council’s website was lacking, and that the process for challenging the council’s decision on C’s application for kinship allowance was unclear. They agreed to take a number of improvement actions in response.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. In addition to the failings identified from the council's own complaint investigation, we found that when there was a reported change in circumstances in the family home, the council failed to carry out an assessment of A’s wellbeing or seek their views to determine whether they were a child at risk of being looked after (an eligible child). We found that when C made a request for kinship allowance, the council’s assessment was lacking in detail and reasoning, and failed to consider A’s wellbeing and seek their views. We found that the council’s position that C was not eligible for kinship allowance failed to adequately take into account the relevant legislation and national guidance or the changed circumstances in the family home. We also found that the council failed to provide a full and informed response to C’s complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. 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 outcome of assessments for kinship care allowance should be appropriately completed and the rationale for decision-making, and specifically whether a child meets the relevant eligibility criteria, clearly documented and clarified as necessary.
• When there is a reported change in circumstances of a child, and/or an application for kinship care allowance is made to the council, or a kinship care order is granted following an application having been made, wellbeing and eligibility assessments should be undertaken in line with relevant legislation and national guidance in relation to kinship care assistance.
• Decisions to award kinship allowance should be based on a robust assessment of eligibility, which take into account a child’s wellbeing and views, circumstances/change of circumstances, and the relevant legislation and national guidance in relation to kinship care assistance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be informed and accurate, and take account of any relevant legislation and national 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

C complained to the council about a local access route that was closed off by the landowner. C said that the route had historically been asserted as a right of way (RoW) and a planning condition imposed to protect it. In response, the council declined to take action to re-open the route. They explained that, notwithstanding the route being referred to a RoW in the planning process, the route had not been asserted and had no legal status. They explained that the planning condition (to provide an upgraded alternative route through the site) had also been removed on appeal. However, in a further response, the council stated that the condition remained valid but was found to be ultra vires and unenforceable as the alternative route was not in the landowner’s ownership. They declined to take any further action on the basis a suitable alternative route, in their ownership, had been provided and remained open.

C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action to keep open the claimed RoW. C said that the council had been very clear in the planning process that the claimed route had been established as a RoW, and Scotways had also considered the route had met the criteria to be a RoW. They said that the council had also failed to take reasonable enforcement action in respect of the planning condition and had provided contradictory responses to their complaints about these matters.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had provided a reasonable explanation regarding the status of the route but highlighted that it would be for the courts to determine the status of a disputed RoW if C disagreed with the council’s position. We also found that the decision not to take any further action to keep the claimed route open was a discretionary matter which the council were entitled to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

However, we provided feedback to the council in respect of the original planning application. Specifically, we noted that the council had appeared to determine the application as including the diversion of a claimed RoW without confirming the status of that route. We reminded the council that, when dealing with planning applications which make reference to a RoW, to firstly confirm the actual status of such route and where required, to amend the application description if it is deemed that the route is not a RoW prior to making any determination.

Notwithstanding the unenforceability of the planning condition itself, we found that there had not been any failure by the council in respect of enforcement matters. We found that the council’s position that the planning condition had now been complied with as a suitable alternative route through the site had been provided, to be acceptable. For these reasons, we did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

We also found that the council failed to provide a clear and consist explanation in their response to C’s complaints and had incorrectly applied terminology and/or language. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. We also reminded the council to ensure that where responses cannot be provided within the timescales set out in their Complaint Handling Procedure, they should write to a complainant to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a revised timescale for response, and that where they are unable to respond to a request for information from our office within the timescale specified, they should contact us as soon as possible and without delay.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Ensure that all relevant staff are reminded of the need to use the correct terminology when referring to matters in which the terminology has a particular meaning.

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

C, a support and advice worker, complained on behalf of their client (A). A is a kinship carer to two grandchildren (child B and child D). When child B was born, they stayed with their parent and A at the same address. The following year, child B’s parent left the house and child B remained in A’s care. There was social work involvement during this period, with a section 25 being signed and a noted intention to assess further and refer to the Children’s Reporter. Within a few months, A was granted a residency order conferring parental rights and responsibilities and the council closed the case.

Child D was born and lived with their parent for four years, until they were placed with A under a Compulsory Supervision Order. A received kinship care allowance for child D and also applied for kinship care allowance for child B. This was initially refused, but after A made a complaint to the SPSO, the application was reconsidered. The council backdated the kinship care allowance in respect of child B.

C complained that kinship care allowance was not backdated far enough for child B. The council responded that they had never considered child B to be a “looked after” child and therefore eligible for kinship care allowance. As such there was no reason to backdate further.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that due to lack of evidence and dispute between parties it was not possible to definitively determine the status of child B in earlier years. On application, the council paid kinship care allowance and backdated to the point at which child D had been placed with A under a Compulsory Supervision Order. We determined that the council had acted reasonably in this matter. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C applied for free school transport for their child (A) when A was about to begin secondary school. The council rejected this application on the grounds that A did not live within the catchment area of the secondary school they had been enrolled in. A had been enrolled at the school automatically and had not obtained a place by placing request (a request that is made when you are not in the school catchment area). C considered that A should have been provided with free school transport because A had not obtained a place at the school by placing request, and therefore the policy on privilege transport (to those who lived out of catchment) should not apply.

We found that the council's communication surrounding this issue could have been better. However, we considered that the policy on both free school transport and privilege transport had been reasonably applied. This was on the basis that regardless of how A came to be provided with a place at the school, the policy was clear regarding allocation of a transport place to those in a school catchment and those who were not. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to obtain planning permission for the extension of a playpark. C said the development of the expanded playpark area required planning permission as it was a material change and was also a bad neighbour development.

We found that the council did not misinterpret law or policy and had proper regard for material considerations. Their decision not to take enforcement action in relation to a slide that required planning permission was also legitimate and took account of material considerations. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

However, we considered that it would have been helpful if the council's planning services had been involved at an earlier stage in the process and not only at the point that residents started raising concerns. This may have helped to identify issues in relation to the height of the slide at an earlier stage. We provided feedback to the council about this.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to undertake a proper assessment of them as a prospective adoptive parent for a foster child placed in their care (A). C also complained that the transition of A from foster care to their adoptive family was unreasonable.

The council said that it was decided that C would not be considered further as a prospective adoptive parent for A based on C's responses to enquiries made of them at the early screening stage and their circumstances at the time. C did not agree with the council's response and brought their complaint to the SPSO.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We noted that the council had acknowledged their failure to ensure sufficient visits with C had taken place. However, we found that the council's decision not to consider C further as an adoptive parent was reasonable and did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

In relation to the transition of A to their adoptive family, we found that this was reasonable and decisions were made with the best interests of A in mind. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about the council's investigation of incidents of anti-social behaviour from A's neighbour. C said the council failed to carry out a reasonable investigation which had an adverse effect on A's mental and physical health.

The council's initial response was very brief and simply stated that they had looked over the case notes and spoken with the staff involved. The council did not uphold C's complaint and C brought their complaint to this office. We sent the complaint back to the council and asked them to provide a more full response. The council's second response was more detailed, gave a chronology of events and summarised the action they took each time C, A (or their neighbour) reported an incident. However, it still only gave brief details of the actions taken by the council after each report and failed to evidence that this was in line with their anti-social behaviour policies.

After further enquiries the council provided evidence of the policy and procedure they followed. We found that there were a series of administrative errors on the part of the council and that council records contained inappropriate speculation about A's health and its possible impact on their complaint. Although these administrative failings undermined C's confidence in the council's actions, we found that the council did respond to the complaints of anti-social behaviour in line with their own procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint but provided the council with feedback.

Summary

C complained that the social work service unreasonably failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of their grandchild (A)'s parents. They also complained about the level of support provided to the parents. In particular, C complained that there was too much focus on the past behaviours of the parents, and that social work had unreasonably planned for A to be adopted prior to their birth. C also said a social worker showing bias towards the parents, and that social work had interfered with a housing transfer application.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the assessment of the parents undertaken by social work had been reasonable, noting that the relevant guidance required for the past behaviours of parents to be considered as part of a wider comprehensive assessment to determine future risks to a child. We also found the plan to move A to the adoption register had occurred over a period of time, and we did not find evidence to support C's view that it had been planned prior to A's birth. We considered the overall level of support provided to the parents had been reasonable, including in relation to the housing transfer application. In relation to C's complaint about the social worker, we did not find evidence to support that a full investigation of this point had taken place, and we provided feedback to the council on this matter. Overall, we considered that the assessment and support provided to the parents by social work had been reasonable. We did not uphold C's complaints.