Local Government

Summary

Mr C contacted the council's environmental services about a spillage of domestic heating oil (kerosene) in the area near to his home. Mr C had the spillage completely cleaned from his property but his neighbour did not. Mr C was concerned about the potential for recontamination of his property, and about the smell of kerosene, from his neighbour's land. He contacted the council, asking them to take action to deal with his neighbour's failure to have the spilt kerosene cleaned up. The council said that the clean-up was the insurance company's responsibility. Mr C was not satisfied with the council's response to his concerns and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that Mr C's complaint of smell from the kerosene spillage at his neighbour's property could potentially have been deemed a statutory nuisance. The council were unable to provide us with evidence that they had carried out a robust investigation into Mr C's complaint of smell, to determine if it was valid. Instead, it appeared that the council relied on a report prepared by environmental specialists working for Mr C's insurers, in relation to the clean-up at his property. We also found that what the council told Mr C about the matter was, on occasion, at odds with their internal communication. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for their failure to respond reasonably to his reports of kerosene contamination at a neighbouring property. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Carry out a robust investigation into Mr C's reports of kerosene contamination at a neighbouring property, with specific reference to both the potential for recontamination of his property, and smell affecting the reasonable enjoyment of his premises.

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

• Share our decision letter with environmental services staff, who should reflect on their handling of Mr C's reports of kerosene contamination at a neighbouring property, with reference to the adviser's observation that nuisance can include having reasonable enjoyment of premises impeded or restricted.

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 about various matters related to the sale of public land to private individuals.

We found that the council's actions had been reasonable in relation to most of the complaints Mr C raised. However, we did uphold a complaint that the council had unreasonably failed to address the impact of proposed development on land designated as greenspace in a delegated report, but did not consider that this had any significant impact on the ultimate decision to grant the application.

We also upheld a complaint that the council had not responded reasonably to complaints raised in a particular email. We found that they did not address two specific points and did not discuss the need for an extended timescale with Mr C or provide him with a revised timescale for response.

Recommendations

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

• All planning applications should be assessed against all relevant policies.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should respond to all relevant concerns raised and, where an extension to complaint response timescales is necessary, discuss this with the complainant and provide them with a new timescale within which they can expect a response.

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 the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) who is a council tenant. Mr C said that her property had been in a state of disrepair with issues including repeated boiler breakdowns, faulty electrics, persistent roof leaks and draughty windows. Mrs A had been reporting and complaining about these issues for a number of years but the council had only recently brought the property up to a reasonable state of repair. Mr C considered that the time taken to repair the property and provide a final response to Mrs A's complaints had been unreasonable.

We found that Mrs A had been complaining to the council, about a number of similar repair issues, for several years. There were a number of repairs mentioned in the complaints correspondence which were not recorded on the council's repair log, meaning it was difficult to assess whether these were completed within a reasonable timescale. The council told us that they did not record the outcomes of their inspections. This meant that it was very difficult to assess the ongoing condition of the property or evidence whether or not the faults being reported persisted throughout the period in question, or only required repair later in the process due to damage or deterioration.

We considered it was likely that there were unreasonable delays on the part of the council. Additionally, the reason we were unable to confirm this was due to insufficient record-keeping. We also found that the council's complaints handling had been unreasonable as they delayed in referring Mrs A to ourselves. Therefore, we upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs A for failing to appropriately handle the repairs to her property and to both her and Mr C for the failures in complaints handling. 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:

• The repair log should be a full and accurate record of all repairs completed.
• A clear record should be made of repair inspections, detailing the inspector's findings.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be handled and progressed in line with the complaints policy.

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 redevelopment of a park which backs on to her property. Ms C also complained about how the council responded to her complaints.

Ms C complained that the layout of the redevelopment of the park had changed and that she had not been consulted on this matter. The council explained that the original plans were concept designs only, and that it was normal for the specifics of the design to evolve as the project progressed. Non-material variation permissions were sought for the movement of some park equipment. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser said that the council's response and explanation were reasonable and was satisfied that the correct permissions had been sought. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to Ms C's complaint about the way that the council had handled her complaint, we found that the council had not treated correspondence from either Ms C or her representative as complaints when they should have been. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for not reasonably responding to her correspondence. 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:

• The council should be clear about what process to put correspondence into. They should check this with the sender, if they are unsure. Correspondence should be replied to promptly, or the sender should be told why there will be a delay, or why no response will be issued.

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 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.