Local Government

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.

Summary

C’s child (A) was assaulted at school by other pupils. C complained that the council had failed to protect their child, failed to provide appropriate first aid and failed to provide a reasonable level of support to them following the incident. C also complained that the council failed to safeguard A from the bullying they subsequently experienced.

In their response to C’s complaint, the council provided details of the first aid provided and the steps taken to notify C’s spouse of what had happened. They said that the school had introduced a number of measures to help keep child A safe after the incident. The council initially said that C had refused to take part in restorative meetings, which they considered would have helped to resolve matters. After C complained about the council’s response, the council conceded that C had not been invited to a restorative meeting and apologised for this inaccurate information in their response.

We reviewed the council’s actions with reference to the relevant council policies. We considered that the assault had been taken seriously and acted upon swiftly. However, we found that although the council endeavoured to put in place a number of arrangements aimed at keeping A safe, these did not appear to have been fully implemented. We found that certain aspects of the council’s policies were not followed, that the council acknowledged that no restorative meetings took place and that counselling was not available to child A. We found that the council failed to ensure A was sufficiently supported after the incident and we also found shortcomings in the council’s complaints handling. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and C’s family for the reliance on inaccurate information when reaching conclusions in the stage one response, with an acknowledgement of the impact this had on them. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to C for the issues highlighted in this decision notice. 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 consider creating a structured procedure and guidance for dealing with serious unacceptable behaviour and ensuring that the parties involved receive a full suite of support if required.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Information contained within complaint responses should be accurate. In terms of good practice, complaint responses should be person-centred and non-confrontational.

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 their council tax account. They had applied for a single person discount and a council tax reduction. C complained that the council failed to manage their account properly, did not communicate with them and issued warning notices for payment while the account was in dispute. C said that the council’s handling of their account amounted to discrimination.

We found that there were significant delays throughout the council’s assessment. However, we noted that this took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were disrupted. We found nothing to suggest the council were discriminating against C but considered that their communication was generally poor.

We were satisfied that C’s council tax reduction entitlement was assessed reasonably, but we considered more could have been done to obtain the relevant information for the purposes of assessing C’s application for single person discount. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the issues highlighted in this decision. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Invite C to provide evidence of the date that they moved into the property and reassess the start date for their single person discount accordingly. The council should confirm to C what type of evidence they would accept as proof of the date of entry.

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.