Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns when The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) and their collection agents pursued him for alleged substantial council tax arrears relating to three former addresses which dated back to 1994. He was concerned at the amount of those arrears and differences between the Council and their collection agents as to how much he allegedly owed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) have failed since March 2007 to provide Mr C with an accurate and comprehensive statement of his indebtedness for council tax (upheld); and
• (b) failed to act on Mr C's assertions that his indebtedness for council tax for certain years has been overstated by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant and his wife (Mr and Mrs C) moved house and relocated their sports tour package business to a town in Fife in February 2004. Shortly thereafter neighbours complained about associated activities and Fife Council (the Council) issued a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) and, after the matter was reported to the Council's Development Committee (the Committee), a Planning Enforcement Notice (PEN). Mr C appealed against the PEN to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU) and that appeal was heard before a reporter (Reporter 2) at a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) in June 2005. Reporter 2's decision was issued on 25 August 2005. Reporter 2 dismissed the appeal, confirmed the PEN subject to a number of amendments and, in a separate determination, refused an application on Mr C's behalf for expenses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) poor and/or incorrect advice was given by Council officers to Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) the Council issued the PCN and subsequently the PEN on the basis of insufficient evidence (partially upheld to the extent of the inadequacy of the report presented to the Committee);
• (c) there was poor and inconsistent handling of matters by the Council and a failure to follow appropriate procedures (not upheld);
• (d) the SEIRU's initial appointment of a reporter (Reporter 1) did not follow relevant guidance on conflict of interest (upheld);
• (e) the PLI and related activity was handled poorly (partially upheld to the extent that not all letters were shared); and
• (f) Reporter 2, in determining the appeal, did not adequately justify his decisions by demonstrating they were based on the available evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the scope of information to be presented to the Committee on planning contravention when seeking authorisation to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action; and The Ombudsman recommends that DPEA remind their staff and panel of reporters of the need to consider whether particular appointments may be perceived as involving a conflict of interest, and that DPEA take account of ethical standards in public life in relation to such appointments.

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

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, complained on behalf of their late son (Mr A) that the Social Work Department of Scottish Borders Council (the Council) had failed to provide him with an appropriate level of support. They pursued this through the Council's complaint procedure and made oral submissions to a Complaints Review Committee (the CRC). The CRC did not uphold their complaint and Mr and Mrs C complained about the CRC's handling of this matter.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint by the CRC was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the complaint is not upheld, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the distress caused by the concerns raised by the CRC about the adequacy of the information provided to them prior to the CRC hearing.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about The Moray Council (the Council)'s handling of her request for direct payments to enable her to purchase help with domestic tasks in her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that there was:

• (a) failure by the support organisation representing the Council (the Organisation) to provide accurate information to Ms C about her application for direct payments (partially upheld, to the extent that there was a failure to refer Ms C back to the Council for appropriate advice);
• (b) a delay in processing Ms C’s application (upheld); and
• (c) failure to conduct a proper investigation into Ms C's complaint against the Organisation (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) have regard to the failures identified in this report when they undertake their planned review of their direct payments procedure;
• (ii) give appropriate support and assistance to Ms C to help her decide what help she needs to receive in her home and maintain this after implementation of any service offered by the Council;
• (iii) make a payment of £750 to Ms C in recognition of service failure and an additional sum of £250 for time and trouble; and
• (iv) as a matter of priority, take steps to implement a complaint process which is open, capable of proper audit and accessible by service users.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) relocated from Renfrewshire to North Lanarkshire in October 2006. She complained that Renfrewshire Council (Council 1) failed to follow their own stated procedures when transferring her social work case file to North Lanarkshire Council (Council 2). Ms C felt that Council 1 delayed the transfer process unnecessarily and failed to provide complete information to Council 2, disrupting her transition into her new area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Council 1 failed to carry out Ms C's social work case transfer in:

• (a) accordance with their own procedures (upheld); and
• (b) a timely manner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1:

• (i) introduce procedures to ensure that any requests for action on a service user's case file are proactively pursued to completion; and
• (ii) formally apologise to Ms C for the anxiety and disruption caused by their handling of her social work case transfer.

Council 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) relocated from Renfrewshire to North Lanarkshire in October 2006. She raised a number of complaints regarding the transfer of her social work file and care package. She complained that North Lanarkshire Council (Council 1) failed to follow their own stated procedures when taking over her care and that poor administration and communication on Council 1's part, when carrying out a community care assessment, led to the introduction of inadequate care services and the subsequent cancellation of her care package.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Council 1 failed to carry out the transfer of Ms C's social work file in line with their own procedures (not upheld);
• (b) Council 1 withdrew Ms C's care package against her wishes (no finding);
• (c) Council 1 failed to carry out an adequate occupational therapy assessment at Ms C's home (not upheld);
• (d) Council 1 failed to carry out the recommendations made as a result of the Social Work (Complaints Review) Sub-Committee's findings (not upheld); and
• (e) the care package provided by Council 1 was unsuitable to meet Ms C's assessed needs (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1:

• (i) consider introducing formal guidance to social work staff on inter-authority case transfers and communication with incoming service users;
• (ii) introduce a policy of requesting written confirmation of a service user's intent to cancel their care in cases where the need for care remains;
• (iii) review Ms C's case and identify ways of introducing basic care quickly, whilst needs assessments are carried out;
• (iv) prioritise the completion of Ms C's care plan;
• (v) consider ways of formally recording service users' acceptance and understanding of any proposals before finalising care plans; and
• (vi) consider ways to record service users' non-acceptance of proposals and to escalate matters through the formal complaints procedure.

Council 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to approve his neighbourﾒs planning application to build an extension and the way in which they responded to his enquiries.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) breached their own planning guidelines for extensions (not upheld);
• (b) failed in their duty to protect Mr C as an adjoining proprietor (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to give Mr C timely advice when requested to do so (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council write to Mr C to apologise for their failure to provide timely responses when requested to do so.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about a decision by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) to remove warden provision from sheltered housing.  He said there had been a failure to consult with tenants and that the information available to Councillors when the decision was made was inadequate.  He also complained about the process of implementation; the transition provisions; and communication generally, including the Council's response to complaints raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not consult with tenants prior to the decision (upheld, to the extent that the decision not to consult was made without legal advice which would have been required to make it soundly based);
• (b) information provided to Councillors, prior to the decision, was inadequate (not upheld);
• (c) there was insufficient planning for the process of implementation and transition provisions (upheld); and
• (d) communication throughout was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures for ensuring appropriate legal advice is obtained and recorded prior to significant decisions;
• (ii) use the implementation of this decision as a case study, to ensure appropriate planning is in place for future service changes;
• (iii) ensure that, for future service changes, adequate and appropriate communication planning is undertaken and monitored; and
• (iv) review the information currently provided to tenants about the new system and ensure that systems are in place to allow tenants to communicate with the Council simply and effectively.

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

Overview

Ms C's complaint resulted from the concern she raised that her elderly aunt (Ms A) had been incorrectly charged for Homecare Services for the preparation of meals by Scottish Borders Council (the Council).  Ms C's concern was addressed by the Council, however, Ms C alleged that the Council dealt inadequately with her complaint about the handling of her concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to guide Ms C through the Council's complaint's process or respond adequately to her complaint regarding the Homecare charges levied against her late aunt (not upheld);
• (b) postponed and delayed the Complaints Review Committee Hearing (the Hearing), which extended over the time period allowed for the Hearing to sit and report (upheld); and
• (c) delayed in forwarding a copy of the Hearing Report to Ms C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Ms C for the delay to the Hearing taking place, and for the delay in forwarding her a copy of the Hearing Report.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the way they were treated by The Moray Council (the Council) as foster carers when a child who had been in their long term care was removed from their care and returned to her biological parents.

Specific complaints and conclusions

• (a) failed when handling the complaint (not upheld); and
• (b) mishandled what Mr and Mrs C described as their de-registering as foster carers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council reflect on their handling of this complaint with a view to giving further consideration in future to signposting individuals to the Complaints Procedure to express their dissatisfaction with a Council service.

The Council have agreed to the recommendation and have already revised their procedure for handling social work complaints, have produced a dedicated statutory guide and a leaflet for the public and are rolling out training for staff.