Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's policy on kinship care allowances. She and her husband are kinship carers for their granddaughter and previously obtained a residency order. The council pays approved/formal kinship carers the same additional four week holiday allowance that is paid to foster carers. However, they do not pay this to previously approved/informal kinship carers, which is the category that Mrs C falls into. Mrs C feels that a council committee report proves that she should be paid the four week allowance, as it states that approved/informal kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence order (now known as a kinship care order).

We made a number of enquiries to both the council and the Scottish Government. Although we were not satisfied by the council's initial response, they eventually provided a more robust justification for why they reached their decision within the existing legal framework. The Scottish Government also provided a far clearer explanation of their intentions than was contained in the letter detailing the funding agreement which led to the changes to kinship care allowances. They stated that the funding agreement only applied to regular weekly allowances and was intended to bring allowances for eligible kinship carers in line with foster carers. Therefore, local authorities had discretion to make additional payments as they saw fit. In addition to this, we saw no evidence to support the statement in the council's committee report which stated that kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence or kinship care order. On this basis, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we did provide feedback to the Scottish Government as they are currently carrying out a national review into kinship and foster care payment arrangements.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's child (child A) was a pupil in a primary school. Child A started to show signs of difficulty with reading and writing, which became more apparent when they moved into the next school year. Mr and Mrs C removed child A from the school as they believed that the school had told them that they could no longer support their child. Mr and Mrs C complained that the school failed to assess their child for dyslexia and to provide the appropriate support.

We found that the school had acted appropriately in line with the council's "Dyslexia Guidelines". The evidence we received showed that the school assessed child A's needs as they progressed through the school years and that support was provided. We found no evidence to corroborate Mr and Mrs C's view that the school stated that they could no longer support child A. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably applied their Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Policy (UCBP, a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). The council decided to apply their UCBP on the basis that the correspondence received from Mr C placed an unreasonable demand on the business of the council. They confirmed that they would still accept Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

We found that the council were unable to provide enough evidence to support their decision to apply the policy. We noted that the correspondence recorded from Mr C was mainly based under FOI requests which the council had stated that they did not take into consideration when deciding to implement their UCBP. We also noted that the council were unable to access some correspondence as they had been issued to members of staff who had since left the council. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for unreasonably applying their Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Policy. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Clarify and review the status of the restriction of access under the UCBP.
• Respond to Mr C's emails providing him with the information he requested where they are able to do so and where they have not previously provided it.

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

• The council should take steps to ensure that when correspondence is received it is identified and recorded at the outset which part of the correspondence relates to FOI and non-FOI.
• The council should take steps to ensure that when the UCBP is implemented the correspondence which this refers to is identified and highlighted to the customer.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should establish how they can retain access to emails issued by customers to members of staff, who leave the employment of the council to ensure that evidence they rely on is retained for the purpose of complaints investigations.

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 failed to adopt definitive criteria for cleaning roads that have been fouled by farmers and farmworkers and their activities, and about the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that the council were not required to adopt the definitive criteria Mr C wanted. The council already had in place a Road Inspection Guide, which was informed by relevant legislation and national standards, and provided a framework for the inspection of roads, including reactive safety inspections initiated by reports from the public. We also found that the council took Mr C's complaint seriously, made appropriate enquiries, came to a reasonable conclusion, and suggested a remedy for a failing that they identified. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

However, we found that council officers did not make records of inspections in response to Mr C's reports of mud on the road. It also appeared that the council may not have provided advice to their technical staff on how such situations would be managed across the council area, which they told Mr C that they would do. Therefore, we made a recommendation to address these points.

Recommendations

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

• Remind council officers of what the Road Inspection Guide says about recording all reactive safety inspections.

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, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients (Mr and Mrs B) about the council's complaints handling process in relation to social work. Mr and Mrs B had made a funding application for a house extension to accommodate the needs of their disabled son (Mr A). This had been refused after occupational therapy reviews and the matter went to a complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in considering the recommendations of the CRC; failed to give reasonable justification for not accepting the recommendations of the CRC; and failed to consider a subsequent complaint in line with their obligations.

In relation to the delay, the council said that this was due to staff absence, and therefore the report was not available to meet the deadline. We considered this explanation to be reasonable; however, the legislation states that if there are delays in considering CRC recommendations, this has to be agreed with the complainant. We found that the council had not agreed an extension to the deadline and therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to not accepting the recommendations, the council said that the committee had made the decision to disregard them based on a report by the social work department. However, they acknowledged that this was not published in the minutes in line with the relevant guidance. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

During our investigation, we found that the council had since introduced a new legislative procedure for social work complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations in relation to Mr C's complaints.

Finally, in considering how the council had handled a subsequent complaint of Mr C's, we found that the council had initially responded in a timely manner, apologising where appropriate and explaining their position. Therefore, we did not upold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to concerns she raised about dampness and mould in her property. Mrs C said that throughout the time she resided there, she and her family had to endure intolerable living conditions which affected their health. She also said that furniture and personal possessions were ruined. Mrs C and her family were later relocated to another property. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to the property.

We found that, in a number of areas, the council's response to Mrs C's concerns about dampness and mould in the property were of a reasonable standard based on the evidence available. However, we considered that the council could have given clearer information about initial works carried out to the property before Mrs  C moved in and that there was delay in the information provided to her about making an insurance claim. The council acknowledged that the explanation for the source of the damp and mould in the property had changed over the course of their correspondence and there was a lack of a co-ordinated response from the council teams concerned. The council also acknowledged that this had led to a delay in responding to Mrs C's complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, we considered that the council had appropriately acknowledged and apologised to Mrs C for the failings in responding to her concerns and that they had taken action to address this.

In relation to Mrs C concerns about appropriate repairs, we found that there was evidence that the council took appropriate steps to ascertain the problems at the property and establish what repairs were necessary. We considered it was reasonable for the council to rely on the professional judgement of their officers, who considered that the problems were being caused by condensation, rather than water ingress. We found that the council's actions to address the damp and mould issues were reasonable, and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an MSP's caseworker, complained on behalf of a constituent (Mr A) that the council failed to appropriately investigate Mr A's reports of noise. Mr A said that renovation works being carried out by his next door neighbour were causing him severe disruption. The council had initially served an abatement notice, setting out legal time restrictions for the hours the works could be carried out. However, Mr A said that he had repeatedly reported that works were ongoing outwith the specified hours and that the council had been unable to attend to witness the noise and enforce the notice. By the time that the council were able to attend out-of-hours, the works were mostly complete, with remaining works taking place during the specified hours.

We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council had no formal policy or procedure relating to the investigation of noise and enforcement of abatement notices. The council said that a policy would not cover the complexity of noise complaints and would restrict their staff from using their professional judgement. The adviser noted that Scottish Government guidance suggests that local authorities should have clear policies and procedures in place to govern the investigation of noise nuisance. The guidance also suggested that those policies and procedures should set out clear timescales for response, along with details for out-of-hours provision. We considered that the council's reason for not having these policies and procedures was unreasonable. We also found that the council had taken too long to attend and investigate Mr A's ongoing reports of noise, both during and outwith normal working hours. Finally, we noted that the were a number of documents missing including records of phone calls made by Mr A and details of the site visits the council did carry out. For these reasons, we considered that the council failed to appropriately investigate Mr A's reports of noise and upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A for failing to appropriately investigate his reports of noise. 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:

• The council should have a clear procedure for noise management and investigation, in line with the Scottish Government guidance. This will include full details of out-of-hours arrangements and timescales for attendance following noise reports.
• Full records should be made of investigations, which should be made readily available for any complaint investigation.

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

Ms C complained about the way that the council dealt with a planning application. In particular, she raised concerns about the pre-application consultation (PAC) process to give the local community an opportunity to provide their views. Ms C was also concerned that the council did not hold a biodiversity duty document. Ms C also complained about the way the council responded to her complaints.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the PAC process had been carried out appropriately, and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the biodiversity document was not held by the council, despite a statutory requirement for them to hold this. We upheld this part of Ms C's complaint.

Regarding the council's complaints handling, we found that, until the related planning application had been finally determined, it was premature for complaints about its handling to be made to the council. However, we found that this was not explained to Mrs C and that there were delays in responding to her. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to deal with her complaints appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be familiar with the council's stated complaints procedure and follow it as required.

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 fell on a pedestrian railway crossing and injured himself. He complained to the council that they had not taken steps to ensure that the walkway was safe for members of the public, including providing adequate lighting and warnings of steps on the approach to the bridge. The council responded that they considered the footbridge was adequately maintained and that there was no obligation to provide lighting. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We found that the council had entered into an agreement with the rail company, and their predecessors, that stated the rail company was responsible for the maintenance of the footbridge. They were also responsible for specifying what lighting was required. Therefore, we determined that it was not the responsibility of the council to ensure that the footbridge was safe. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to his complaint. We found that the council's response was insufficient as it failed to explain that the rail company was responsible for the maintenance of the footbridge, and that they were the appropriate party to deal with the complaint. We also found that there was an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with a response to his complaint. Therefore, 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 unreasonably failing to respond to his complaint and provide Mr C with a full explanation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complainants should be informed of any delays in providing a reponse ahead of the deadline set and revised timescales should be agreed.

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, who is an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of his client (Ms B) that the council unreasonably failed to provide her child (child A) with a Self Directed Support package (SDS, a package that allows individuals to choose how they receive their social care and support). Ms B was informed that it was likely child A would qualify for SDS but at the end of the eligibility assessment it was determined that they did not meet the criteria. Ms B was told by her social worker that the eligibility criteria had changed and child A did not meet these requirements. Ms B complained to the council about the change in criteria and that her expectations were unfairly raised. The council responded by explaining that the criteria had not changed and that this was incorrect information provided by the social worker. They also noted that the social worker did explain that any award given is always dependent on the outcome of the assessment. Ms B was unhappy with this response and Mr C brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the criteria had not changed and that the social worker involved appeared to have misunderstood the content of an email from the team manager about eligibility criteria. We noted that the council had acknowledged this failing and apologised to Ms B for providing her with incorrect information. We found that child A had been assessed appropriately and against the SDS eligibility criteria set out in the council's guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we were concerned that Ms B's expectations of the SDS outcome had been unfairly raised and we asked the council to reflect upon this for future learning.