Local Government

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.

Summary

C complained that the council unreasonably assessed that a property was in a safe and lettable condition when they handed the tenancy over, that the council failed to make, or communicate, reasonable arrangements for carrying out repairs, and that the council failed to provide a reasonable response.

In respect to the aspect of the complaint that the council had unreasonably assessed that their property was in a lettable condition when the tenancy was allocated, we found that the capacity of the council’s systems to record safety and quality checks led to the council being unable to evidence that the property met the lettable standard at the time the tenancy was allocated. We therefore upheld this complaint.

C also complained that the council failed to make, or communicate, reasonable arrangements for carrying out repairs. We found that C was put to having to arrange repairs that could have been carried out before the property was let. We also found that the council did not communicate effectively with C when appointments were cancelled or had to be rearranged. We therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained that the council did not provide a reasonable response to their complaints. We found that the responses to the complaints did not address all of the concerns raised and failed to recognise the impact the issues had on C. We therefore also upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to ensure that repairs were carried out to the required standard prior to letting the property, for failing to check that the heating and smoke alarm systems were in full working order, for failing to make or communicate reasonable arrangements for appointments and for failing to provide a reasonable response to their complaints. 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:

• Where the council have informed a tenant that they will carry out repair work, officers should keep the tenant updated about any delays.
• The council should have effective systems in place to ensure the Lettable Standard is met and that records are well maintained and easily accessible. Tenants must have a satisfactory provision for heating their property.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should comply with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and council staff should be familiar with the Complaints Handling Procedure. Responses should address each point of the complaint, providing a clear explanation of what occured and describing action that will be taken where something has gone wrong. The information in responses should be supported by the evidence in the relevant records.
• Complaint responses should recognise the complainant’s experience and demonstrate empathy for their situation.

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 reported concerns to the council’s environmental services department about smoke pollution over a number of years as a result of their neighbour burning bonfires and a wood-burning stove. C was dissatisfied with the lack of action taken by the council and submitted a complaint. C considered that the council’s investigation of their concerns was insufficiently detailed, failed to take account of available evidence, and dismissed factors which C considered important. C also complained that the council’s response contained a number of inaccuracies.

We found that the council did not meet the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. However, the complaint was raised and investigated during the COVID-19 pandemic and C was advised from the outset that timescales were being affected. The council also apologised for this delay. We considered the overall time taken to have been understandable in the circumstances. However, we did note that the council failed to communicate to C that their complaint was being considered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure, despite initially advising that it would be reviewed at stage 1 and that C was not provided with updates when they asked.

It is also clear that there was ongoing communication between C and environmental services throughout the investigation period, correspondence sent and received via a councillor on C's behalf and Freedom of Information requests made. This all contributed to an overall confused chain of correspondence.

Generally, we were satisfied that C’s complaints were taken seriously and an investigation was carried out before the council’s response was issued. However, we found that the investigation sought mainly to respond to the complaint, rather than get to the root cause and attempt to resolve C’s dissatisfaction. The council’s response to C’s complaint reiterated their previously-stated position on whether they considered statutory nuisance had been witnessed. However, C’s complaint referred to the way that the officers had reached their decision, and the lack of objective measurement of the problem or use of official monitoring tools and the apparent disagreement as to which legislation was relevant. We considered that the council’s response should have explained matters such as why the smoke was not considered to be a statutory nuisance, what would be considered a statutory nuisance, why no equipment was deemed necessary to establish that no nuisance existed, and how the officers assess such situations.

We found no evidence that the council’s response to C’s complaint was inaccurate, or that a more detailed investigation would have altered the outcome in terms of the environmental services' assessment of C’s reports.

C also appears to have been given conflicting explanations as to why video evidence was not considered. However, this was clarified in response to our enquiries. We considered that this highlights the importance of collating a single clear explanation before responding to an individual’s enquiry.

Taking all the evidence into account, we found that the council did not reasonably respond to C's complaint. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to address some of the issues C raised, that their communication with C regarding the complaints procedure was poor and their general communication was confusing. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Write to C to provide a more comprehensive response to the outstanding issues we have identified in this decision.

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

• The council should consider how they could have better managed correspondence from C to ensure that, where individuals communicate through multiple channels or across multiple departments on the same issue, all points are responded to fully and consistently.

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 Community Care Assessment (CCA) of their young adult child's (A) care and support needs. The CCA recommended that A continue to work with Social Work to meet the family’s desired outcome of A working towards independent living and becoming less reliant on their parents. C complained that the CCA did not take into account all of the information that they had submitted for consideration. In particular, they were concerned that the CCA failed to take account of the family’s home situation and allow for periods of respite for both A and their parents.

The council concluded that the CCA had taken account of, and referred to, all relevant information, including from other relevant council departments and outside organisations. The council were also of the view that the CCA had taken into consideration A’s outcomes, including time that would be neither spent by A at home nor with their parents.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council’s decisions following the CCA regarding respite for A were reasonable, and that they reasonably took account of the family’s home situation.

We found that the CCA was completed following the principles of the relevant legislation and reached a reasonable conclusion. We found nothing to suggest that the council failed to take account of relevant information, or minimised any potential risks to A or others. We did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to provide their grandchild (A) with reasonable support following an incident at primary school.

It is accepted by the council that the school should have held a second Child Protection Meeting (CPM). This was a clear oversight from the school, and it is not clear why this happened. This oversight led to C not being given feedback from the educational psychologist who had planned to feed back at the next CPM.

We found that the support offered to A was documented, evidence based and well thought out. An educational psychologist did not have any concerns about A, following their observation of them in class, that would have indicated further support measures were needed.

When C escalated their complaint with the council, we found that the council provided reasonable answers to the questions put to them in a reasonable timeframe. When it became clear that a CPM that had been cancelled had not been rescheduled, the council offered a further meeting which we consider was a reasonable remedy in the circumstances. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out an adequate assessment of their parent (A)'s personal care needs and made an unreasonable decision that A did not meet the criteria for free personal care funding.

We found that the council's records did not evidence that thorough assessments of A's needs were carried out. There was no evidence that A's needs had changed, or that they no longer met the criteria for free personal care funding when the funding stopped. Although there was some evidence that A's needs were considered when the decision to stop funding was challenged, there was no evidence of an adequate assessment. Therefore we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to complete an adequate assessment of A's needs, for failing to work in partnership with A and their family and for stopping free personal care funding. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Provide financial redress for an amount equal to the payment of free personal care funding that A should have received between the dates specified in our decision notice.

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

• Assessments and reviews should be fully and accurately recorded within a reasonable timeframe.
• Funding decisions should be based on robust assessments that are completed and recorded in accordance with council procedures.

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 reports they made about their neighbours' antisocial behaviour. They reported a number of incidents to the Police and to the council's Antisocial Behaviour and Private Sector Services teams. Although C's reports were investigated, they were dissatisfied with the action that was taken by the council. C complained that the council failed on multiple occasions to respond to their contacts or took an unreasonable length of time to respond. C submitted a formal complaint to the council. Again, they considered that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to their concerns and inappropriately assigned an individual who was involved in the matters they complained about to conduct the investigation.

We found that although the council communicated clearly and regularly with C regarding their ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour, more could have been done to explain their assessment of the situation and the reasons why no formal action was being taken. We found that the council failed to follow their complaints handling procedure. There were delays in responding to C's complaint and it would have been better practice for the complaint to be investigated by someone with no involvement. On balance, 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.

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

• Staff should handle complaints in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure, ensuring that wherever possible the complaint is investigated by someone not involved in the complaint.
• The council should ensure that when customer contact is escalated to a formal complaint, it is dealt with under the complaints handling procedure.

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 that the council failed to respond appropriately to concerns they raised about their child (A) who had cancer. C was separated from A's other parent (B) and, at the time A became ill, both C and B shared A's care on an equal basis and had Parental Responsibilities and Rights in relation to A. C was concerned about aspects of A's care and quality of life during their illness. C raised concerns that B repeatedly acted against medical advice, and acted aggressively and was abusive to C and C's partner while A was present. C complained about the way social workers and A's Named Person (a central point of contact if a child, young person or their parent(s) want information or advice) dealt with their concerns. C complained that during A's illness council staff acted unprofessionally and did not take their repeated requests for help seriously.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council should have more fully investigated the concerns C raised about A's welfare. In particular, they should have made contact with a relevant health professional involved in A's care to clarify whether they shared C's concerns. The council had a statutory duty to make enquiries in connection with A's welfare, to satisfy themselves that A was not at risk. We found that the council failed to meet their statutory obligations in this regard. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C complained about the council's complaint handling. We recognised this was a difficult and complex complaint for the council to investigate, but we were critical of a number of aspects of the complaint handling. We recognised that the complaint investigation spanned some of the COVID-19-related lockdowns, when services were adversely impacted. However, we found that the council not only failed to meet the relevant timescales in accordance with their complaints handling procedure, they also failed to keep C updated regarding progress. We were critical of the complaint being passed back to the team manager to finalise the response when the senior manager investigating the complaint retired; the team manager was not sufficiently senior to deal with the complaint and they were cited in the complaint themselves. We also found that there was a lack of depth in the investigation. We considered the complaint handling was unreasonable and upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in our investigation. The apology should recognise the impact of these failings on C, C's wider family, and on A. 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:

• Council staff are clear about their obligations and act within the relevant statutory framework. Parents with parental responsibilities and rights are treated equally by council staff. In particular, where parents present differing accounts of significant events which cannot be reconciled, relevant independent third parties should be contacted for verification, both parents should be involved in planning for meetings such as TATC, the child's views should be sought in relation to matters affecting them.
• The council should consider putting in place a system for auditing records of child protection concerns reported to a school or noted by a school.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints are investigated in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. Complainants are kept updated regularly. Complex stage 2 complaints are investigated by a senior manager. Complaints should not be investigated by staff cited within the complaint.

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 drainage assessment for a planning application. They said it only considered the likely impact of flooding on the planning site, with no Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) being undertaken to determine the potential off-site impact of excess drainage on the surrounding area, or downstream from the development site. C advised of there being a noticeable increase of water draining from the site and flooding on completion of the first of the three planned plots, and they complained about the longer term impact on the surrounding pathways including of a bridge which was C's only route of access to their home.

The council's response to C's complaint advised that there had been no known problem with flooding in the local area and that they had referred to SEPA flood maps to inform their decision on the level of assessment required for the application. As flooding was not a known problem in the area, there was no requirement to undertake an FRA for the planning application in keeping with the policies in place at the time. The council also advised any possible solution involving third party land would be a civil matter and not one which the council would pursue.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had reasonably considered the impact of excess drainage on the area surrounding the planning site in keeping with the guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.