Local Government

Perth and Kinross Council

The Ombudsman received a complaint from Mr C alleging that Renfrewshire Council had failed to properly carry out footpath repairs close to his home.

On 5 May 2005 the Ombudsman received a complaint from Mrs C on behalf of her elderly father (Mr F), who is in poor health, about the way in which North Ayrshire Council handled the sale of his council house.

The complaint related to West Dunbartonshire Council’s handling of representations about unauthorised timber decking erected by the complainant’s neighbours in the rear garden of their adjoining semi-detached property.

The complainant is the former owner of a substantial detached house and farm steading buildings in a rural part of the Council’s area. Prior to marketing his property, Mr C commissioned an architectural practice to obtain planning consent on his behalf for demolition of some existing buildings and residential development in the farm courtyard area. The complaint made by The Practice on Mr C’s behalf is that salient information was omitted in a written response to a pre-application planning enquiry and that Mr C incurred substantial abortive costs in design fees and that the planning application fee was also lost when Mr C decided that the application should be withdrawn.

This complaint was received from the tenant of an East Ayrshire Council house in Kilmarnock (Mr L). Mr L was aggrieved about the Council’s actions as housing authority, in intimating to him that they intended to raise proceedings to recover possession of his home on grounds of his prolonged absence without their prior permission.

Falkirk Council

Falkirk Council

Summary

Ms C’s daughter (Miss A) has complex medical needs.  In 2011, the council assessed her as requiring 42 nights respite care each year but so far, this had not been provided. As her own health was suffering, and threatening to compromise the care she could give Miss A, Ms C made a formal complaint to the council about their failure to provide Miss A with the respite care she needed.

The council acknowledged that despite their efforts, they had been unable to meet Miss A’s requirements; they said that the resources needed in terms of the availability of a suitable carer, and the specialist knowledge and training required, were in short supply. They had approached a children’s hospice; a local charity with residential care facilities and put funding in place to provide assistance from Ms C’s mother.  The council said that although they had had no success, it remained their priority to provide Miss A with the respite care she needed.

We took independent social work advice and found that Miss A’s complex needs made it extremely challenging to provide an appropriate service for her.  The council had looked at a number of options which, for reasons outwith their control, had not proved possible. However, with the passage of time, there should have been greater consideration of Miss A’s circumstances and those of her family, a greater recording of the action taken by the council and a more creative and imaginative approach in order to show that they had done everything in their power to satisfy Miss A’s unmet respite care needs. We upheld the complaint.

Redress and Recommendations
The Ombudsman's recommendations are set out below:

What we are asking the Council to do for Ms C:

We are asking the Council to improve the way they do things:

The Council told us they had already taken action to fix the problem.  We will ask them for evidence that this has happened:

Summary
Mr C is the landlord for his brother (Mr A), who receives housing benefit.  Mr A has an injury which means he needs support to manage his affairs.  Because of this, the housing benefit is paid directly to Mr C as landlord, (and Mr C is authorised to communicate directly with the council about this).  Mr A's housing benefit payment was delayed on three occasions without notice, with the longest delay being about five weeks.

When Mr C complained after the second delay, the council agreed to monitor Mr A's account so they could notify Mr C of any future delays.  However, this monitoring was stopped after three months, and Mr A's payment was again delayed without notice.  Mr C complained to the council, who apologised that he was not told that the monitoring of Mr A's account had stopped.  The council said they had found a more efficient way to monitor Mr A's account, for a further six months.  However, Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response and brought his complaint to SPSO.

In response to SPSO's enquiries, the council explained that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) use a system of automated notifications to notify the council electronically of any changes to a benefit claimant's records (such as contact details or income details).  Where a notification is received that could result in a change in benefit entitlement, the council's system automatically suspends the claimant's benefit payment (to stop any payments being made until the change has been reviewed).  Council officers then review these notifications and either lift the suspension (if the change does not affect the claimant's entitlements) or contact the claimant to request further information or make changes, if necessary.   The council said Mr A's benefit was automatically suspended on three occasions (each time due to one benefit being stopped, with a different benefit starting in its place).  As these changes did not affect Mr A's payment, the council unsuspended the payment each time (once they had an opportunity to review it).  The council said the delay was due to the workload they had at the time, with each automated suspension being dealt with in turn.

We asked why the council did not notify claimants when their benefits were suspended in this way.  The council said this was because, in most cases, the automated suspensions are removed without any impact on benefit claimants, so it is not necessary to warn people about a possible delay in payment.  The council said they receive thousands of automated notifications every month, and notifying every claimant of a suspension that may be lifted before the payment is due would create unnecessary confusion and contact with the council, which would divert resources from dealing with the suspensions as quickly as possible.  The council also said their system would not allow them to send a letter that would fully explain the situation in appropriate circumstances, so they would need to do this manually (which would impact on resources).  The council said that, since this complaint, they had improved their processes to minimise the chance of a payment being delayed.

After investigating these matters, we upheld Mr C's complaint.  We found that the council was not complying with guidance from the DWP that requires decision makers to notify claimants in writing when a decision is made to suspend their benefit.  We did not consider the council had a reasonable explanation for not complying with this guidance, as the numbers they gave us about the average number and length of automated suspensions did not support their claim that the risk of a payment being delayed was small.  The council was not able to provide information on the actual numbers of people whose benefits are delayed, or for how long, as they do not monitor this.  We were particularly concerned that the council's system of automated suspensions did not include mechanisms for protecting vulnerable people or considering hardship at the time the suspension is made.  It was also not clear that the council is giving appropriate consideration to the individual circumstances of each case when they make a decision to suspend a payment under the automated system.

Redress and Recommendations
The Ombudsman's recommendations the Council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation found; and
• amend their processes to ensure that individuals are notified at the time a suspension is applied to their benefit (as required by the DWP Guidance).