Local Government

Summary

C complained about The City of Edinburgh Council’s administration of their council tax account. C complained that the council issued reminders for council tax arrears and threats of legal action when they had paid their council tax in accordance with a payment arrangement. C also complained that the council failed to respond to the their complaint in accordance with their Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP).

The council apologised for delay in responding to C’s complaint. They said that a council tax payment reminder had been sent to C as they had made a payment without using their reference number. This had meant that the payment hadn’t been allocated to C’s account.

C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the council had failed to respond to their correspondence and had failed to take the fact that they are a vulnerable person into account.

We found that the council had repeatedly failed to engage with C’s correspondence over a significant period of time. We found serious and repeated failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We considered that the council acted without any consideration or accommodation of C’s vulnerability. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in the administration of C’s council tax and in the handling of their complaint. 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:

• Enquiries about council tax payments, especially where the council is claiming no payment has been made and the customer is stating the contrary, should be dealt with and responded to promptly.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The necessary systems and procedures should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the council’s complaints policy and procedure and that all staff are aware of the complaints handling policy and 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 about the actions of South Lanarkshire Council in relation to work that they carried out to a property adjoining C’s home. The work related to the change of position of a gas boiler flue. C considered that this has had an adverse effect upon them and their property. The council did not identify any failings, but changed the orientation of the flue as a result of C’s concerns. C remained unhappy.

C complained that, as a result of the change in position, the flue discharged dangerous gasses into their home. C also complained that the council had failed to respond to their complaint in line with their published Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP).

We found that the council had acted reasonably regarding the change in position of the flue. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we found multiple failures by the council to adhere to their CHP. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings, in particular, the unreasonable delays identified in the handling of their complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• The necessary systems and procedures should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the council’s complaints policy and procedure and that all staff are aware of the complaints handling policy and 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 about Fife council's handling of a complaint that they made regarding an incident involving their child (A) at their school.

C said that A was a victim of sexual assault and harassment during a playground game in which another child forced A to kiss them, touched A inappropriately and encouraged other children to chase and catch A. C said that, as a result of this, A felt unsafe and was unable to return to the school.

C complained that the council’s staff failed to carry out a reasonable investigation, including that A’s teacher’s account of events was accepted without any further scrutiny.

We found that the council’s initial investigation of concerns raised verbally by C was reasonable and highlighted the school staff’s conclusion at that time that this had been a matter that could be dealt with in the classroom. When new information became available indicating that the events may have been more serious, the council left the investigation to the police. Following completion of the police’s investigation, the council issued their response to the complaint, which reflected the situation as they understood it.

However, C’s complaint clearly included mention of their concern that a few weeks before the specific incident complained of they had reported to the teacher that a similar incident had occurred. Due to the lack of records available of the council’s investigation it is unclear whether, or to what extent, that these concerns were taken into account or investigated. These concerns were not responded to by the council. It is unclear, therefore, whether the council reasonably considered the implications of the teacher having been aware of potentially inappropriate behaviour taking place among the children for a few weeks before the reports that led to action being taken. These implications may have included what weight the school and council gave to the teacher’s statements, whether evidence or corroboration should have been sought for when the teacher or other staff first became aware of the children’s actions in the playground, and whether the outcome of the investigations would have been the same. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for their failure to investigate and respond to C’s concern that they had reported to the teacher. 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:

• Complaints are properly investigated and responded to in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure for Local Authorities.

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 planning department with respect to a section 75 agreement (a contract that is entered into between a landowner and a planning authority). In particular, C complained that the council had failed to adhere to a clause of the section 75 agreement requiring them to adopt open space and woodland areas within, and bordering the housing development on which C lives. C noted that some of the land in question had now been sold to a property developer. C believed that the council’s inaction could result in development adversely affecting C and other residents’ properties and a failure to maintain the playpark and communal spaces. Additionally, C was dissatisfied with the council’s response to their complaint due to missed timescales, and the response having been issued by an officer closely involved in the matters complained about.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that many of the significant events related to this complaint were now historic. In particular, the fifth clause of the section 75 agreement required prior action be taken, adoption of the land by the council, before occupation of a number of homes in a phased development. However, a number of years previously the council had failed to monitor and discharge this condition allowing occupation. While in theory enforcement action remained a possibility at the council’s discretion, due to the passage of time the owner of the land likely now had deemed planning permission. On this basis, we upheld C’s complaints about these matters. We also upheld C’s complaint that the complaint had not been handled in line with the council’s complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing in their duty to ensure that all the conditions and schedules of the decision notice and the Section 75 Agreement were discharged. Apologise for failings in relation to enforcement action which due to the passage of time and failings outlined appeared to no longer be a reasonable option available to the council. Additionally, apologise for the failings in complaint handling. 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 as a condition of planning permission being granted, the council and the developer have entered into a Section 75 Agreement, the said Agreement and the conditions attached there too require to be monitored by the council to ensure that they are complied with and discharged. The council should therefore ensure that they have a systematic and robust system of monitoring in place.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should ensure that they comply with the process and time limits set out in the complaint handling procedure. Where the council are unable to meet their time limits for responding to a complainant they should notify the complainant and explain the reasons why. The council should also ensure that their final response to a complaint signposts to this office in line with their 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’s child (A), was a pupil at a school in the council’s area. C said that A experienced bullying and a sexual assault by another pupil at the school, resulting in changes to A’s behaviour, anxiety and distress to the extent that A could no longer attend. Following discussions with the council, it was agreed that C could apply for A to attend a new school, outside of their local area.

C complained about school 1’s handling of A’s support needs and their response to A’s disclosure about the alleged sexual assault and events stemming from this. C also complained about the council’s failure to arrange transport for A to the new school, which C said had been discussed as part of the decision to apply for a place there.

C raised a number of complaints with the council regarding their concerns, including that the council had unreasonably contacted Police Scotland regarding the actions of C’s partner (B). C did not consider that the council responded reasonably to the points that they raised.

We accepted the council’s position that MAAP (Multi-agency assurance panel) meetings would not have been required over the relevant period. We also found that there was clear evidence of the school assessing A’s needs and putting in place reasonable measures to support them. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

Overall, we found that the school appropriately recorded A’s disclosure of sexual assault, instigated the involvement of relevant third parties to ensure that the matter was investigated properly, communicated and collaborated well with A and their family to arrange support for A and to explain why there were limitations to the action that they were able to take. Given the circumstances the school had to work with, we are satisfied that they proposed a range of supports that gave A options for safe places to go should they feel threatened. Whilst we acknowledge C’s view that these arrangements did not eliminate the risk to A, overall, we found that the school’s support plans were reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

We found that the available evidence supported the council’s account of events related to the contacting of Police Scotland in connection with B’s actions and that the school’s actions on the day reflected the situation as it unfolded in a number of physical locations and involving different staff members being approached by different individuals with information. We did not uphold C’s complaint in this respect.

Whilst we have no cause to doubt C’s recollection of events, we found that there was no evidence to support C’s recollection that the council had agreed that door-to-door transport for A to the new school was required or would be provided. We are satisfied that the council considered A’s specific circumstances in reaching their decision on the request for transportation. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

Overall, we found that the council took C’s complaints seriously, conducted reasonable investigations, responded fully to the points C raised and that these responses were supported by the council’s policies and the contemporaneous records that they held. However, there was a clear and unreasonable delay to the council’s handling of one of C’s complaints, as the council had accepted and apologised for. Given the length of this delay, on balance, we upheld C’s complaint about the council’s complaints handling.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to provide support to them and their child (A), who had a severe and debilitating mental illness, and that the council unreasonably failed to respond to all of their concerns.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. In relation to the council’s failure to provide support to C and A, we found that there were unreasonable delays by the council at each stage of this case. We found that there appeared to be a lack of appropriate management oversight of the case, and a lack of follow up to ensure the best possible outcome for A was met. We also found that the overall communication with C was poor.

In relation to the council’s failure to respond to all of C’s concerns, we found that the actions which the allocated social worker said that they would undertake to progress the case had led C not to make a complaint. We found that the council’s complaint response lacked detail and clarity as to what went wrong and how this could have been avoided. In particular there should have been a clearer acknowledgement and explanation as to why their own guidelines on timescales were not adhered to. We also found that the council failed to fully acknowledge the impact on C, A and their family from those delays and that if the council considered it was not possible or appropriate to issue a joint response on behalf of the council and other partnership organisations, the reason(s) why should have been explained to C and C should have been signposted accordingly. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in providing support to C and 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:

• Complaint responses should be informed and accurate. The council’s complaint handling monitoring and governance system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified and that learning from complaints is used to drive service development and improvement. The council should ensure that they carry out a robust investigation of a complaint when things go wrong. This should include examining the management and decision-making processes of a case to ensure that they have an understanding of all aspects of a case.
• Contact and referrals to social work services should be handled in a timely way and, where appropriate, allocated to a social worker without delay. Children and Young Persons’ assessments should be completed wherever possible in accordance with the timescales set out in the council’s policy. Where this timescale cannot be met, the reasons for this should be fully documented and there should be regular and proactive communication throughout the process.

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 is the parent of two children, A and B, who complained about the council's handling of child protection concerns raised in respect of A and B. C is concerned that due to lack of proper procedure, decisions made by the Court in respect of contact between their ex-partner and the children were based on inaccurate information provided in social work reports.

The council's own investigation of the complaint identified that there was inadequate recording of the child protection concerns reported by C and that a welfare report compiled by the social worker was not of an acceptable standard.

We took independent advice from an experienced social work adviser. We found that there were failings to make a verbatim record of the child protection concerns raised by C, that the welfare report prepared for the Court was below an acceptable standard, and that there was a poor record of the interviews conducted with the children. Based on the evidence available, it was agreed that given that the children did not make a further disclosure to the social worker when interviewed, there were no grounds to pursue a child protection investigation. However, on balance, we concluded that, in light of the failings identified, there was a failure in the overall handling of the child protection concerns raised and as such, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C also complained about the council's handling of their complaint. We found this to be reasonable and did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to conduct their enquiries in a clear and transparent way, failing to keep adequate records of their contacts with C, the child protection concerns reported by C, and of the interviews conducted with the children; and for the poor standard of the welfare report. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their client (A), who has looked after their grandchildren since the sudden death of the children's parent (B) but never received kinship care allowance.

A kinship care assessment commenced and the outcome was that A was not suitable to be approved as kinship carer. However, a Children's Hearing panel decided that both children should remain in the care of A (contrary to the recommendation of social work).

A couple of years later the children's other parent (D) died (and it was stated by C that D would not have been able to look after the children prior to that). After this, C states a regular payment was given to A, albeit less than the kinship care rate. C states that the children had previously had a social worker involved and A had worked with social work regarding the care of the children, and that they had asked A to look after them following their parents (B) death.

C considered that A was eligible for an allowance because the children are 'looked after' as they were cared for under a Section 25 arrangement Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and then a Compulsory Supervision Order. C refers to Regulations 36, 38 & 39 in The Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009. C was concerned about the length of time taken to commence a kinship care assessment and that this was not commenced at the point that the council asked C to look after the children. The council stated that there is a new kinship care assessment in progress.

Summary

C is a parent who lives with their partner (B). An allegation was made that C had used physical punishment to discipline their children and the children were removed from C and B's care. C complained that the children were removed without any evidence of wrongdoing on C's part.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the reason for the removal of the children was justified on the basis of the evidence available at the time.

However, we considered concerns about the apparent lack of investigation into allegations which were made about B, incomplete forms, and the decision to return the children to C and B's care in advance of the outcome of the case. For these reasons we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

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

• Staff should complete all relevant sections of paperwork. Staff should reflect on the outcome of this case.

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 had failed to handle their planning application correctly. C said that the council had failed to communicate appropriately with their agent, adversely affecting their application. C also said that the council had prevented the Local Review Body (LRB, deals with requests from applicants for a review of planning decisions) from considering correspondence submitted by their councillors in support of their application. They were also concerned about the way the council had responded to concerns about a conflict of interest. C said that the objector to their application was an immediate relative of a senior planning officer. They believed this had not been properly addressed by the council. C's final concern was that the LRB had not considered the correct plans, noting the decision issued by the LRB had referenced incorrect plans.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that although there was evidence of some delays in responding to C's agent, the standard of communication was reasonable. There was no evidence that the LRB were prevented from considering correspondence from C's councillors. However, the correspondence was not part of the original application and the LRB would have had to determine specifically that it was relevant in order to include it in their decision making. The council were also able to demonstrate that the LRB had access to all the relevant plans when reaching their decision. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of C's complaint.

In relation to the conflict of interest, we found that there was no evidence the decision on C's application had been affected by a conflict of interest. However, the council had not kept adequate records of how the acknowledged conflict of interest had been identified and managed. We upheld this part of C's complaint and asked the council to apologise but made no further recommendations as the council were able to show they had already taken action to address this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the error identified 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.

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.