Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) has a son (Child C) with special educational needs, who attends a secondary school (the School) in the area of West Lothian Council (the Council). Mr C raised concerns over the way the Council's Education Department handled his grievance with the School about adjusting Child C's second year timetable, and the Chief Executive's handling of his formal complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council's:

• (a) Education Department did not make an appropriate intervention to resolve a problem which had arisen with the School over Child C's timetable choices (not upheld);
• (b) Education Department failed to direct Mr C to his entitlement to mediation services (partially upheld); and
• (c) Chief Executive did not carry out an appropriate investigation before responding to Mr C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the Education Department not referring to the procedures for accessing the Mediation Service in June 2006; for not expediting the mediation requested by Mr C on 23 August 2006; and for the inadequacies in their investigation of, and response to Mr C's concerns; and
• (ii) review Council staff's awareness of the Mediation Service and the availability of the related leaflet.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns with West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council)’s Social Work Department about the care being provided by their agents to his uncle. Mr C pursued this complaint through the Council's complaints procedure and, as he remained unhappy, on 23 November 2007, he requested that a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) hear his complaint. The CRC was not held until 27 October 2008.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council delayed unreasonably in holding a CRC (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report;
• (ii) review their procedures to ensure that the CRC membership is kept up to date at all times;
• (iii) ensure that, in future, any extension to the time limits, as set out in the Directions, is agreed by the complainant(s); and
• (iv) consider, as part of their review of procedures, whether there is a need for specific literature to be provided to Social Work complainants on the complaints procedure. The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) approached Glasgow City Council (the Council) about problems of dampness he was experiencing in his property. He believed that the source of the dampness was his neighbour (Mr N)'s flat. The Council considered that the water ingress constituted a statutory nuisance and served an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which required Mr N to address the source of the problem. Mr N eventually undertook some work which did not stop the dampness. Mr C believed that the Council unreasonably did not use the powers at their disposal to ensure that Mr N took action that would solve the problem.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to enforce an Abatement Notice effectively (upheld); and
• (b) failed to keep Mr C adequately informed about progress of the enforcement of the Abatement Notice (no finding).

 Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr and his wife for a lack of clarity and consistency in their approach to addressing the statutory nuisance; and
• (ii) reflect on what can be done to address the gap between their statutory responsibilities and customer expectations in situations like this.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) failed to arrange the provision of appropriate housing to meet the needs of Mr C and his family from September 2004 to date (the needs arising as a result of Mr C being disabled in a traffic accident in September 2004).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to undertake the appropriate assessments, identify the family’s needs and provide for the necessary housing adaptations in a timely manner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) introduce a detailed assessment framework for identifying the needs of each individual entitled to be so assessed and what adaptations might be required to meet those needs. This assessment should include input from all professionals involved including (but not limited to) Occupational Therapists, Social Workers and Health Professionals;
• (ii) review the current policy with respect to Private Sector Housing Improvement Grants and ensure that the policy is clear as to its limitations (both of funding and which needs will be met) and what adaptations might constitute an exception to the usual limit. Action should also be taken to ensure that relevant staff are fully aware of this policy, these limits and exceptions;
• (iii) introduce a procedure for dealing with adaptation cases where no agreement can be reached;
• (iv) as a matter of urgency produce a statement of needs for Mr C and his family, the adaptations needed to meet these needs and a plan for how these adaptations might be achieved; and
• (v) in recognition of the avoidable delays which have occurred in meeting Mr C's long term needs and the distress caused by this, make a payment to Mr C of £5,000.

The Council have already accepted the recommendations and have already enacted recommendation (iv) and is the process of taking action that will achieve (iii).

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.