Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that primary school staff failed to follow procedures in relation to their reports of their child being bullied, and about the council's handling of their complaint.

We found that council policy required that if a bullying incident was reported, it should be investigated to establish whether bullying had occurred, and that school management would monitor and keep records of incidents from all classes, identifying possible patterns of behaviour. Class teachers would follow- up any complaint by a parent and report back promptly and fully on the action taken; investigate an incident if bullying was suspected or reported, with the incident being dealt with immediately by the teacher approached; and monitor and record conflicts on pastoral notes and advise the Senior Management Team of this. We were not provided with any records that investigations took place, in response to Mr and Mrs C's contact, to establish whether bullying had occurred. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr and Mrs C submitted a detailed complaint to the council. In our view, the council should have dealt with it at the investigation stage of the complaints handling procedure, rather than trying to deal with it at the frontline resolution stage. After this, the council carried out an investigation outside the complaints handling procedure and, after this, a second investigation as part of the complaints handling procedure. We found that the council's responses to Mr and Mrs C, in particular after the first investigation, did not deal with the complaints they had raised, or provide reasonable responses to key points. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for unreasonably failing to follow procedures in relation to their reports of their child being bullied. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• School staff should ensure that they follow the council's and the school's anti-bullying policies, and keep adequate records.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable steps in relation to his complaints about dust and noise from industrial premises near his home.

We took independent advice from a consultant in environmental health. We found no evidence of a lack of willingness by the council to respond to Mr C's complaints of dust and noise, in line with the relevant legislation. We found that, on each occasion, the council determined there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, we did have concerns about the council's records of monitoring and the advisability of follow-up in relation to the council's recent investigations regarding dust and noise. We made a recommendation and provided feedback to the council to address these points.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Carry out further follow-up monitoring of dust and noise, and work with the premises operator if appropriate to mitigate noise sources where possible.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were kinship carers for Child A. Child A was removed from Mr and Mrs C's care and placed in foster care. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council failed to provide the appropriate support to them as kinship carers.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that, while at times the level of support provided was reasonable, there were occasions when the council's actions were unreasonable. In particular, we found that:

• Child A was not seen alone by their supervising social worker every four weeks, contrary to the council's own standards.

• The council failed to carry out home visits to Mr and Mrs C on two occasions.

• The council did not provide a reasonable level of support to Mr and Mrs C to ensure they had the necessary skills to meet Child A's needs, given the possible impact of Child A's experiences and the behavioural issues that could arise.

• The council instructed an external service to provide Child A with support. It was not clear from the records when the support of this service started and ended for Child A or what work the service was doing with Child A.

• A planning meeting was not carried out within 72 hours of Child A being placed with Mr and Mrs C and no kinship care assessment was completed for Mr and Mrs C, contrary to the council's own guidance and the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

• Child A's social work notes were often recorded much later than set out by the Council's policy which states that they should be recorded within five days of the event.

In addition, we found that the handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint was unreasonable.

We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to provide a reasonable level of support to them as kinship carers and for failing to handle their complaint in accordance with the Social Work Model Complaints Handling Procedure. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Looked After Children should be seen on their own by their allocated social worker every four weeks in accordance with Fife Council's Social Work Service Children & Families Service Duty Principles & Standards (August 2017).
• The council should visit the child and their carer on any occasion where it is considered necessary or appropriate to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child or where it is considered necessary or appropriate to provide support and assistance to the child's carer for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child, in accordance with the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009.
• Where a child has experienced neglect and/or abuse, the council should discuss the likely impact of this with the kinship carers at the earliest opportunity and provide the level of support needed to ensure the kinship carers have the necessary skills to meet the child's needs in accordance with the Getting it Right for Every Child Framework.
• Where the council instructs an external service to provide support, changes to the service provided and the reasons for those changes should be recorded clearly.
• Planning meetings should be held within 72 hours of kinship care placements beginning in accordance with Fife Council's Kinship Assessment Guidance. Kinship care assessments should be completed within 12 weeks of the kinship care placements beginning in accordance with the Looked after and Accommodated (Scotland) Regulations 2009, the Guidance on Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and Fife Council's Kinship Assessment Guidance. If there are legitimate and assessed reasons for not complying with the Regulations or the Council's Guidance then these should be recorded clearly and approved by a manager.
• Social work case notes should be recorded within five days of the event taking place in accordance with Social Work Service Children & Families Service Duty Principles & Standards (April 2016).

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• When responding to complaints the council should follow their complaints handling procedure and all staff should be aware of this and the model complaints handling procedure for local authorities.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council did not take adequate action to address bullying targeted at her child (Child A). She said that the sanctions applied to the other children were not adequate. The council confirmed that the school recorded and responded to the incidents reported to them appropriately. They said that some of the incidents occurred outside of school hours and, therefore, they were not aware of them. The school also delivered classroom based sessions to promote positive relationships and respect and offered restorative sessions / mediation to Child A. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the council followed their procedures correctly. Incidents were recorded, and professional judgement was exercised regarding what action to take to address the incidents. The school offered weekly sessions to Child A, however, they acknowledged that these were taking place on an ad hoc basis. The council agreed to work with the school to improve this aspect of their procedures. We are satisfied that the school took reasonable steps to address Mrs C's concerns about bullying and did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the head teacher of her child's school did not follow procedures to deal with disruptive behaviour in class or alleged bullying. She also complained about the council's handling of her complaint.

We found sufficient evidence that the head teacher followed relevant procedures to deal with disruptive behaviour, and that the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint was reasonable. In relation to bullying, we found there might have been one incident where the head teacher did not record a bullying incident. In relation to other incidents of alleged bullying, we found no evidence that the head teacher was aware of them or had been made aware of them by Mrs C, her child, or school staff. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had not followed their policies and procedures in relation to an incident involving her child (Child A).

We found that the council had rightly initiated their child protection procedures. The council had also followed their processes, and had met with Miss C to agree a safety plan, taking account of both her views and those of Child A. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow appropriate policies and procedures after an incident involving her child in the playground at school.

We took independent advice from a social worker in relation to the council's handling of matters. We found that the council had acted appropriately immediately after the incident. However, we found that in the period that followed there had been significant failings in the way things were handled. Contrary to GIRFEC principles (Getting it Right for Every Child - the nationwide policy which puts the child at the centre of decision-making and ensures their views are heard), there was a clear failure to involve the child, or take account of their clearly stated views about what had happened to them. The child had written to the council with their concerns about what might happen next, and what would make them feel safe to return to school, and this letter went unacknowledged.

We also found failings in communication with Mrs C. In line with council policy, a Lead Professional should have been nominated when other agencies became involved. The Lead Professional would have been a single point of contact for Mrs C, and would have helped to ensure there was clearer communication and management of expectations. We found there was no clear communication or co-ordination between agencies, which would have heightened the family's anxiety.

In light of these failings, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C and her family for failing to follow GIRFEC policy, by failing to take the child's views into account and by failing to ensure that the child was fully involved in decisions affecting them. Also apologise for the failings in communication with Mrs C, with regard to what steps were being taken to resolve matters and what could be expected in terms of timescales. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• An appropriate person from the council (probably the Headteacher) should respond to the child's letter, acknowledging the impact on them and providing an explanation for the original decision that they should not move class after the incident.

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

• Staff should be confident in applying GIRFEC policy to incidents such as this one. They should ensure that children are fully involved in decisions affecting them and their views taken into account. Clear records should be kept of communication between agencies, and staff should be aware of the importance of clarity in communication between agencies. Staff should be clear about the roles of Named Person and Lead Professional.
• Relevant staff should be clear about who will take the lead in situations such as this. Staff should be aware of the importance of clear and accurate communication about the steps being taken to resolve matters and what can be expected in terms of timescales.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be appropriately empathetic and include a recognition of impact.

Summary

Mrs C complained in her own right, and on behalf of four other parents, that a head teacher failed to follow relevant procedures after an incident involving scissors at a school, and about the council's handling of complaints about the incident.

We found that the council's Anti-Weapon/Knife Crime Policy stated that certain actions were to be taken on the day of an incident, including the weapon being confiscated and placed in a locked cabinet; the police being notified; and senior management and specific council staff being notified. The evidence showed that none of these actions were taken on the day of the incident.

We also found that the council's responses to the complaints did not reasonably reflect the findings of the council's investigation, and did not include an apology for the police not being notified on the day of the incident. In addition, the council's handling of the complaints was not completely in line with the complaints handling procedure.

We upheld Mrs C's complaints. We found that the council had already taken steps to remedy the failings identified and so we did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Miss C's child (Child A) has additional needs and is a primary school pupil. Miss  C complained to the council about the school's handling of her concerns about a playground incident involving Child A and three older children. Miss C complained that the school failed to inform her of the incident and to record it. She also raised concerns about the school's general communication and stated that they failed to provide her partner with weekly updates about Child A as agreed.

We found that the school dealt with the playground incident in a proportionate and reasonable manner. When the headteacher was made aware of the incident, they promptly arranged a meeting with Child A's parents to discuss their concerns. We also found that the school maintained weekly contact with Miss  C's partner as agreed. We found that this only stopped when Miss C informed the school that Child A had received a diagnosis of autism (a  developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and the school felt it was more appropriate to arrange a formal meeting. We concluded that the school's decision was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular that the council had failed to consider their waterside development policy (policy Des 9), had failed to consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time. Mr C also complained about the council's communication with him.

We took independent planning advice. We found that that policy Des 9 should have been referred to in the report of handling (a report containing information on a planning application). It was not possible to know whether this policy had been taken into consideration during the processing of the planning application, as was required. We also found that it was not possible to say whether consideration of policy Des 9 would have resulted in a different outcome. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that SEPA should have been consulted and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We did not find any evidence that the council had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time and we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Regarding communication, we found that some of the issues raised by Mr C had been not been adequately addressed, however, other issues raised by him had been reasonably clarified. We were concerned that a further response letter had had to be issued to Mr C. The council had accepted that there had been a delay in responding and that Mr C should not have had to submit a formal complaint to prompt a full response to his enquiries. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

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

• Development plan policies relevant to the processing of any particular application should be referenced in the report of handling.
• Where a statutory consultation appears to be required as part of the processing of a planning application, but has not taken place, this should be explained in the report of handling.