Local Government

Overview
Mr and Mrs C, and Mr and Mrs D (the Complainants) are two sets of parents who raised a number of concerns about a school trip to France that their daughters (Miss C and Miss D) had attended in October 2007. Their concerns were subsequently investigated by the secondary school (the School) and North Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the planning/management of the trip was inadequate (upheld);
• (b) the investigation into an incident on the trip was inadequate in that the School asked students to complete a questionnaire without involving or informing parents; a senior male teacher interviewed female students about sensitive issues; the Head Teacher made unsubstantiated allegations about some of the students and some of them consider that they have been victimised; the matter should have been referred to the police or the other local authority involved; and parents were not kept informed of the progress of the investigation (partially upheld); and
• (c) the Council should have offered counselling to the students (no finding).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that the revised draft procedures on excursions and outdoor activities are finalised urgently;
• (ii) ensure that the new procedures contain adequate guidance on agreeing and discussing expected standards of behaviour with parents;
• (iii) consider how they can improve the procedures for notifying parents promptly of changes in the arrangements for school trips and excursions;
• (iv) issue an apology to the Complainants for the failings identified in relation to the investigation into the matter; and
• (v) take steps to ensure that complainants are kept informed whilst an investigation into a complaint is ongoing.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview
The complaint was made by a Primary School Council (the School Council) on behalf of the aggrieved, Mrs C, who is a parent of two children who attend a primary school (School 1) which is due to be closed in 2010, on completion of a new school (School 2) which is being built in its place. Through the School Council, Mrs C complained that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) disregarded the results of the public consultation undertaken in 2004 when they decided to amend the planned accommodation in School 2, without further consultation. She considered that the Council were at fault in failing to provide the public with a further opportunity to make their views known and to vote for or against the amendments. She was aggrieved because she believed that the amended accommodation schedule was inadequate and would result in more than one teacher per classroom. Mrs C complained also that the Council failed to reply to her formal complaint on the matter.

Specific complaint and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to carry out further consultation following a change of specification for School 2 (not upheld); and
• (b) failed to reply to Mrs C's formal complaint in line with their procedures (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council ensure that their complaints handling systems which are being reviewed make provision for each stage of the process to be dealt with in the timescales which they have set themselves to respond and that an update will be sent to the customer in the event of a delay.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care her son received from Social Work Services at Aberdeen City Council (the Council) through the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) in the months prior to his death in 2006. Mrs C raised these concerns through the Council's complaints process, up to and including a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (CRC). The CRC made a number of resolutions (duly noted by the Council) but advised Mrs C that the actions and decisions of the CMHT were not a matter the CRC could consider. Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman's office about her original concerns and that the CRC had ruled the actions of the CMHT out of its remit. Mrs C was unhappy that it appeared that her complaints should rather have been addressed through the NHS complaints procedure but the Council had not advised her of this earlier.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the CRC failed to appropriately address Mrs C's complaints (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to take adequate steps to collaborate with the NHS to ensure that Mrs C received a full response to her complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that guidance to CRC members and relevant staff clearly indicates the importance of careful drafting of the CRC minute, to ensure that a decision on each complaint considered is recorded and the basis for any recommendations is explained;
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C for their failure to follow-up with the NHS on the joint issues of her complaint;
• (iii) that guidance to CRCs and members of Council staff who support them is reviewed, to ensure that CRC minutes can fully reflect the conclusions reached and reasons for decisions made; and
• (iv) advise him of the development and progress of an action plan from within the working group towards a policy for managing joint complaints in partnership with the NHS.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) bought her present flat in a tenement in Edinburgh in September 2004. She raised a number of concerns about the issue and administration of statutory notices that were served on owners in June 2005 by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) under subsection 24(1) of the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. She was aggrieved that as an owner, the notices of June 2005 had not been served on her and that she was not alerted to the scale of her liability until September 2008.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to inform Ms C as a co-owner of the service of statutory notices on 24 June 2005 (upheld);
• (b) and their agents failed to update Ms C on the progress of the works (upheld); and
• (c) delayed in serving the accounts for the works until September 2008 and failed to give Ms C appropriate opportunity to make financial arrangements (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures in updating their database on property ownership to ensure that the database is current; and (ii) consider whether, given their failures to issue Ms C with the statutory notice and to directly update her, there is scope for them to commute part of their administration charge in respect of the contract.

The Council informed the Ombudsman that they accepted the findings in the report, and had set in place action in implementation of the recommendations including the waiving of a third of their administration charge.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained to the Ombudsman's office that the Highland Council (the Council) had failed to respond appropriately to complaints he had made against his neighbours regarding their alleged behaviour.

Specific complaint and conclusions
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to provide appropriate responses to Mr C's representations about his neighbours' alleged anti-social behaviour between October 2005 and October 2007 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s administration of the accounts for works done under two statutory notices served on the owners of the building in which his flat is situated.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council unfairly altered to Mr C's detriment the list of recipients for works instructed by the Council as a result of statutory notices served by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and Ms D) purchased a commercial property on the ground floor of a tenement block in Edinburgh in the autumn of 2004. In the subsequent three and a half years, they received no communication from The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council). On 7 April 2008 they received accounts from the Council for nearly £7,600 in respect of works instructed under notices issued by the Council under the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Mr C and Ms D raised a number of concerns about the Council's handling of the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to serve Mr C and Ms D as part owners of the tenement with statutory notices issued on 13 October 2004 (not upheld);
• (b) failed to update their records on ownership and keep Mr C and Ms D informed of progress on the contract (upheld); and
• (c) failed to respond sympathetically to Mr C and Ms D's request to be given sufficient time to pay accounts for nearly £7,600 of which they had no prior forewarning (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the statutory notice intimation and relevant subsequent correspondence include an appropriate statement for the recipient to contact the Council to alert them to any change in ownership;
• (ii) in the case of commercial properties included in statutory notices, Corporate Property and Contingency Planning institute a practice of checking with the Scottish Assessors Association website to ascertain whether there has been a pertinent recent change of ownership which would require them to update their ownership records; and
• (iii) in the light of the failure to communicate with Mr C and Ms D and update them, the Council consider whether it is appropriate to levy the full administration charge.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have acted on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the handling by East Lothian Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent for a new house on a main road opposite his own property in a conservation village in East Lothian. He was particularly concerned about the likely dominant effect on a former smithy and on parking congestion on the main road.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that in recommending approval of the Application, the Council's Transportation Division and planning case officer failed to require compliance with relevant Council planning policy in respect of car-parking provision (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the present procedures for the need for site visits by their Transportation Division officers prior to responding to consultations on planning applications.

The Council accepted that recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that the school, where her son (Mr C) is a pupil, did not bring to her attention that her son was entitled to apply for an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for the academic year 2006-2007. Mrs C says that Mr C, who has learning difficulties, missed out on receiving an EMA because retrospective payments cannot be made.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the School did not bring to Mrs C's attention that Mr C was entitled to apply for an EMA for the academic year 2006-2007 (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council):

• (i) pay to Mrs C the sum of £1,140 in lieu of the basic allowance payment and an additional payment of £300 in lieu of the bonus payment which Mr C would have been entitled to had he applied for and received an EMA for session 2006-2007; and
• (ii) issue Mrs C with an apology for any inconvenience which she may have been caused.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that her daughter (Child A) had been bullied at her school (the School), and the School had not recorded the incidents of bullying clearly or managed the bullying in line with Shetland Islands Council (the Council)'s procedures. Additionally, Mrs C complained the Council failed to convene a Complaints Review Committee (CRC) to consider a further aspect of a complaint, which related in part, to the remaining issues subject to investigation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the methods of recording and collating incidents of bullying were unclear (upheld);
• (b) the procedures for managing incidents of reported bullying were not adhered to (upheld); and
• (c) the Council failed to convene a CRC to hear Mrs C's complaints about the social work department (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) support the School in a review of their record-keeping to reflect the incidents of new bullying and episodes of continued bullying. This reporting schedule will highlight the progress being made to address new and older reported episodes of bullying within the School;
• (ii) review the School's criteria for first time/new incidents of bullying and the identification of ongoing bullying issues to be clearly set out separately to reduce the confusion and misunderstanding;
• (iii) support the School's development of appropriate contingency plans to be introduced to the policy of handling bullying when a number of incidents are being reported by the same pupil and evidence is difficult to obtain from other children;
• (iv) ensure the local policies are adhered to and explanations are recorded within the documentation when there is a departure from the prescribed procedure;
• (v) apologise to Mrs C and Child A for the confusion caused as a result of diverting from the documented procedure;
• (vi) review their procedures and practices to ensure CRCs can be held within set timescales; and
• (vii) apologise to Mrs C for the delay in convening a CRC.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.