Local Government

Summary

Ms C is an adviser to Ms A. Ms A was a looked after child by the council in a foster care placement, which ended with short notice. At the time the council advised Ms A that she should present as homeless in order to secure accommodation.

Ms C complained that the council failed to provide the required support and aftercare to Ms A as a looked after child, and that they wrongly used homelessness legislation in order to secure accommodation for Ms A. Ms C also complained about the council's handling of the complaint. Ms C said that the council failed to provide a response to the complaint within the agreed extended timescale and she also questioned the impartiality of the investigating officer.

We took independent advice from a social worker. While the council acknowledged that they failed to provide consistent support to Ms A, we did not consider that the council adequately acknowledged their failings. We identified that the council missed a number of opportunities to plan proactively for Ms A leaving care, that they wrongly advised Ms A to present as homeless and that they failed to evidence the after-care support they provided. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

With regards to the council's handling of Ms C's complaint, we found that the investigating officer appointed was suitably impartial, and that they took steps to ensure they took into account Ms A's views. However, we recognise they failed to respond within the agreed timescale. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should update the Pathway Plan and provide clear information on what Ms A's eligible needs are and details of how they will provide the advice and assistance they consider necessary to meet those eligible needs.
• The council should apologise for failing to involve Ms A in discussions about her future, for failing to provide the required support and aftercare and for failing to respond to Ms C's complaint within the agreed timescale. The apology should meet the sta

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

• The council should carry out an audit of young people under their care that are due to leave their care placement in the next 12 months. They should ensure that the appropriate assessments and plans are in place to support these young people when they lea
• The council should take the necessary steps to ensure that the principles of involving young people in discussions about their future arrangements are fully established and embedded within the practice of the social work department and consider whether fu
• Proper records should be kept of the advice and support their staff have provided to their clients.

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

Mr C is the holder of a blue badge which was issued by a different council. When his blue badge did not arrive, Mr C reported this to the issuing council, who subsequently issued a replacement blue badge and cancelled the original one. The original blue badge eventually arrived and Mr C proceeded to use this, unaware that this was the cancelled badge. The City of Edinburgh Council issued Mr C with two penalty charge notices and impounded his car for displaying a cancelled blue badge. The council also observed on three separate occasions that Mr C displayed a valid blue badge, leading them to conclude that he was in possession of two blue badges. Mr C complained that the council wrongly asserted that he was in possession of two blue badges.

We found that the council's blue badge recording systems were insufficient and did not produce consistent information. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that Mr C was in possession of two blue badges. We consided that the council had failed to thoroughly investigate the complaint and, therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We also noted that the council failed to provide us with all the relevant evidence and made a recommendation in light of this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to thoroughly investigate his complaint and to produce relevant evidence. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines at: https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should respond properly to complaints, taking into account all relevant evidence and should provide all the information relevant to a complaint when responding to enquiries from the SPSO.

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

Mr C complained to the council, on behalf of his sister (Ms A), about the company that the council contracted to provide her care. Mr C said that they inappropriately charged her for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for staff, that they had failed to evidence that Ms A received a warm home discount each year and had unreasonably failed to calculate and refund costs associated with the use of Ms A's phone by staff. Mr C also complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to his enquiries. The council confirmed that a refund was being looked into regarding the PPE and that a refund had been issued for one year of phone bills, with five years in total to be assessed. This remained unresolved and Mr C brought his complaint to us.

The council advised a different care provider was contracted for the first two years of care. They did not have evidence of the phone bills or PPE for that period as the company in question has since ceased to exist. The council have since provided Ms A with a refund for three years for the PPE. They provided three years of phone bills but did not offer to issue a further refund in this regard. We considered that the council unreasonably failed to calculate and refund costs for the PPE and use of Ms A's phone by staff. We upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint and asked the council to examine the full five years in question.

In relation to the warm home discount, the council were able to evidence that Ms A had correctly received this. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Finally, we considered that the council had failed to provide a reasonable response to Mr C's enquiries. We noted that the company providing care to Ms A delayed in their response to the council but considered that the delay in responding to his enquiries was unacceptable. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to process the appropriate refunds for PPE and phone bills to Ms A; for failing to provide him with information in relation to this; and for the unacceptable delay in responding to his enquiries and complaints. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The organisation should calculate the PPE and phone bill refunds for five years, evidence this, and refund Ms A accordingly. If information is not available, the council should explain how any estimate has been determined.

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

• Evidence that there is a clear process in place when the council is seeking evidence from a contracted company to prevent future delays of this nature.

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

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take action to address anti-social behaviour at a derelict yard they own, which backs on to her parents' house. She complained that large groups of youths were gathering at night, playing loud music and misusing drugs and alcohol. One of the buildings had been set on fire several times, causing concern because of its proximity to her parents' property.

Mrs C's father (Mr A) had contacted the council on a number of occasions, asking them to take steps to address the problem. After several months without any satisfactory resolution Mrs C complained to the council on her father's behalf, and when she remained dissatisfied with their response she brought her complaint to SPSO.

We found that, until Mrs C complained to them, the council did very little to address the concerns raised by Mr A. They also failed to keep Mr A informed about what action they were taking. We noted that they had taken steps to secure the site, in line with their obligations as landlord, but these steps did little or nothing to prevent access. The council had now taken steps to have buildings on the site demolished and cleared, and although we considered this a positive step, we thought this could have been undertaken much sooner. We upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for not taking action to address their concerns at an earlier stage. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mrs C and her father for the shortcomings in their communication. The apology should meet the standards set out inthe SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Keep Mrs C updated regarding the progress of plans for demolition at the site.

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

• Staff should be confident about handling complaints of this nature and understand the measures available to them to address such concerns.
• Where an investigation involves communication across different departments, staff should diarise ahead to check for responses to ensure that matters do not get overlooked.

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

Mr C complained about delays in the council's handling of a breach of planning consent he first reported to them some years ago, but which remained unresolved until recently. The breach involved a complex engineering matter, which the council told him was the cause of the delay, as significant research had been required on the part of the applicant and their architects to identify a workable solution. Regardless, Mr C believed that the timescales involved were unreasonable and questioned whether the council had taken sufficient steps to progress enforcement action.

We took independent advice from a planning professional. We considered that the informal approach taken by the council and the decisions made at each stage to allow informal negotiations were reasonable. However, we did not consider that the council had taken reasonable steps to follow up on proposed action by the applicants at a number of key stages, resulting in months long delays with no apparent progress on several occasions. Given this, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delays in their handling of his reports of a planning breach. 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:

• At every stage, planning enforcement action and informal negotiations should be progressed within a reasonable timescale.

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

Mr C complained that the council had failed to appropriately handle a complaint he had made about the way in which they had investigated adult protection concerns he raised regarding his mother. The council admitted that they did not follow the usual complaints process in investigating Mr C's complaint. They said that Mr C made multiple complaints and continued to raise his dissatisfaction in correspondence. The council decided to deal with all of the issues raised in a single case review. After the first case review was complete the council agreed to a second case review.

Ultimately, we decided that the process offered by the council was equivalent to the complaints process, and although there was some confusion in respect of communication, ultimately Mr C got the kind of response he would have had the council's complaints procedure been followed. The complaint had been considered in the usual way by a complaint review committee, as was Mr C's right under the social work complaints process at the time. We did not uphold the complaint, however, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the confused communication regarding the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the confused communication around how the complaint was going to be handled. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-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

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined that he owed them rent arrears after leaving his tenancy. Mr C was part of a joint tenancy, having joined the existing tenancy of other people who lived in a council flat. Mr C said that the arrears had arisen due to council errors in the existing tenancy, such as charging for insurance that was not needed, and not notifying the existing tenants of a rent increase.

We found no evidence that the existing tenants notified the council that they did not need insurance. We noted that all tenants were liable to pay rent at the increased rate and that the tenancy agreement was clear that when the other joint tenants left and Mr C remained at the property, the tenancy continued. The council's procedure, in relation to former tenants' arrears, stated that the remaining tenant was liable for all outstanding arrears. In this case, Mr C was the remaining tenant. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter (Ms B), was a looked after child subject to a Compulsory Supervision Order (CSO, a legal document that means that the local authority is responsible for looking after and helping the young person). Ms B had a child (Child A) and spent time living with family and in foster care. While in care, Ms B attended school and Child A attended nursery with financial help from the council. This accommodation did not work out and Ms B and Child A returned to live with Mrs C. This was in breach of the CSO but the council agreed to a temporary move.

Ms B then enrolled at school in the area where Mrs C lived (a different council area). Mrs C sought permission to place Child A with her own childminder and expected the council to cover the costs as they had before. The council refused and Mrs C said that as a consequence she incurred a debt for which she held the council responsible. Ms B and Child A later moved out and returned to her previous council area where she was supported to live independently. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably refused to cover child-care costs while Ms B and Child A lived in the family home.

We took independent advice from a social worker and found that there was no evidence of an agreement that the council would cover the child-care costs. Mrs C knowingly breached a CSO. Although there had been a looked after child (LAC) review to consider Ms B's circumstances, there was no record of what had been discussed. A note provided by a social worker appeared to show that child-care costs had not been discussed. However, once Ms B returned to the family home, there was an expectation that she would be supported by her family as this was one of the guiding principles of national legislation (that parents should normally be responsible for looking after their children). Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we were critical of the fact that the council did not hold a minute of the LAC review and we made recommendations in relation to this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for their failure to record the LAC review. 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:

• A formal record should be available for every LAC review.

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

Mr C owned a flat in a tenement building. The council also owned flats in the building, and Mr C believed that a council tenant had damaged the communal front door and entry system. Mr C thought that the council were responsible for repairing the damage and covering the costs. He complained to us that the council had unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs.

We found that no one actually witnessed who was responsible for the damage. The council explained to Mr C that, unless there were any witnesses, it was very difficult to prove who caused the damage. We saw no evidence, such as legislation or policy, to support Mr C's belief that the council were responsible for paying for damage to communal areas that was allegedly caused by one of their tenants.

All owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council likely shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for a waste management facility. Mr C believed that the council had not followed relevant legislation and procedures in dealing with the application as an urgent matter at a meeting of the full council and had unreasonably allowed costs and the business case to be introduced as material considerations in the determination of the application. Following the council's decision to approve the application, Mr C corresponded with a senior member of council staff who he considered had unreasonably refused to answer his questions.

We found that, as required by the relevant legislation, in the minutes of the council meeting the council had recorded the reasons for the convenor being of the opinion that the application should be considered as a matter of urgency and that the procedures Mr C had referred to had not been relevant in the circumstances of the consideration of the application. We found that it was reasonable, in the context of the application, for costs to have been introduced as material considerations. We could see no evidence that the business case had been introduced as a material consideration. We also considered that the senior member of staff's response to Mr C had effectively answered his questions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.