Local Government

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's decision not to offer her daughter a funded place at a private nursery. She had a number of concerns about the way her funding application had been handled. When she submitted the application, two out of three of her choices were unavailable but the council did not communicate that to Mrs C in their acknowledgement letter. A few months later Mrs C received a letter from the council advising that her daughter had been granted an afternoon place at the nursery class identified as first choice on the application form. When Mrs C contacted the council to let them know this was not suitable because of her working hours, she was not given advice on how to apply for funding at a nursery with suitable provision, despite requesting it.

We did not find any evidence that the council had failed to follow their policy when allocating places at the nursery, but we did consider that their handling of the application at the initial stage was poor and that their communication could have been clearer. We, therefore, upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the shortcomings in their communication.

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

• Staff handling nursery funding applications should provide the opportunity for alternative choices to be made, in the event that they cannot offer the applicant's choices.

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 that they had failed to provide him with appropriate advice and support with respect to his housing and mental health concerns. In their response, the council explained their obligations with respect to housing matters and advised that, as Mr C had never presented as homeless or engaged with housing services, there was no service failing on their part. They acknowledged Mr C's circumstances and committed to provide a full assessment of Mr C's housing and mental health needs. Mr C was later evicted from his property and brought his complaint to us.

We agreed with Mr C that we would consider the actions and response of the council following receipt of his complaint and full disclosure of his circumstances. We considered the council had taken steps to try and offer Mr C advice and assistance with respect to his housing circumstances. The council had followed up on concerns with regard to Mr C's mental health and had made arrangements for a mental health social worker to meet with Mr C. However, this appointment was cancelled by Mr C at late notice.

We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps to respond to Mr C's concerns, assess his circumstances and offer advice and access to the services which may be available to him. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns with the council about revisions to a local bus route and the turning manoeuvre buses performed outside his house as part of the revised route. He considered that this was unsafe and that the revision, which included the turn, should not be permitted. Mr C also raised concerns that, given the number of buses performing the turn every day including in the early morning and in the evening, this posed risks in terms of public health and created a noise nuisance.

The council communicated with Mr C regarding these issues, noting that they did not have any concerns regarding the turn and had not raised this with the bus operator. After an exchange of correspondence the council agreed to carry out an observation and assessment of the turn. Following this, they concluded that they did not have any concerns and would not look to prohibit the turn. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to us.

Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct procedures when permitting the revision to the bus route. We found that the council had considered the revised route when it was proposed by the bus operator. We concluded that it was reasonable for the council not to have raised any concerns with the bus operator, given that the turn was not against road traffic law, and that existing bus routes already carried out the same turn. We found that the council responded appropriately when it agreed to carry out an assessment of the turn following Mr C's concerns. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to follow correct procedures in permitting the bus route.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond to his complaint in accordance with their obligations. We found that the council failed to respond to his concerns under their complaints handling policy. In addition, we found that they failed to signpost him to the council's environmental health team to consider his complaints about noise and fumes. We also concluded that the council failed to diligently follow up commitments made to Mr C that they would liaise with the bus operator with a view to seeking amendments to the bus route. We upheld Mr C's complaint the council failed to respond to his complaint in accordance with their obligations.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide an apology for the complaints handling failings that complies with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The council should progress discussions with the bus operator regarding seeking amendments to the bus route, as they had told Mr C they would do. They should update Mr C regularly with their progress and communicate the outcome to him.
• The council's Environmental Health team should investigate concerns that Mr C has raised about noise and pollution, in accordance with their procedures.

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 raised four complaints relating to a charging order (a charging order means that a property could be used to repay a debt) taken over her mother's home by the council.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to advise her that her mother's care would be financed by a deferred payment, with a charging order being taken over the property. Mrs C also raised concern that the council failed to reasonably advise her that the charging order would rank ahead of other chargers. We found that the council wrote to Mrs C advising her that her mother was required to pay for a shortfall in funding, and that this could be covered by a deferred payment with a charging order being taken over the property. We found that the council also wrote to Mrs C to advise her that a charging order was being taken and that the property could not be sold until the council's debt, which was covered by the charging order, was repaid. We also found that the council advised that Mrs C should take independent legal advice on these issues. We did not uphold these two aspects of the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation regarding the charges incurred by the council which would be repaid on the sale of the property. Whilst we found that the council had provided information on some issues, we found that they did not explain specifically what Mrs C's mother would be charged for her weekly care. The council also charged Mrs C's mother to discharge the charging order and did not advise her up front that this was a cost she would be required to meet. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Issue an apology to Mrs C for failing to provide her with reasonable information regarding the charges incurred by the council on behalf of her mother that would be repaid on the sale of the property.
• Return to Mrs C the sum of money she paid to discharge the charging order.

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

• Ensure that documentation issued to a client or their representative at the outset sets out clearly the costs that the client is responsible for paying either up front or as a deferred payment under a charging order.
• Ensure that the client is notified in advance if they are required to pay the legal fee for the discharge of a charging order.
• Consider whether or not it would be possible to more promptly and proactively alert clients to accruing dent under a charging order.

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 and Mrs C's two children are primary school pupils. Mr and Mrs C reported concerns to the school about on-going issues involving their children and another child. They decided to move their children to another school. Mr and Mrs C complained to the council for failing to take reasonable action in response to incidents involving their children and for failing to investigate their complaint in a fair and balanced way. The council explained that the other child had additional needs and that their behaviour towards Mr and Mrs C's children was not intended to be malicious or designed to bully them. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us.

We found that the school put in place the appropriate support to all children involved. We also noted that incidents involving the children were recorded and appropriate action was taken where necessary. With regards to the council's investigation of the complaint, we found that the council had appointed a teacher from another school as the investigating officer to ensure impartiality. We found the council's approach to their investigation to be well considered and reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following major infrastructure works to install a water pipeline, the council failed to ensure that a specific area of park was returned to an acceptable condition.

We found that, when the council were served notice of the works by the water company, they were told that after the works were completed the land would be reinstated to the council's satisfaction. Mr C felt that the area of the park he was concerned about had been changed and not returned to an acceptable condition. In the council's view, the reinstatement was sympathetic to the area where the works took place, and the council regarded reinstatement of the site as satisfactory. As it was the council's land, it was for them to be satisfied.

Although we appreciated that Mr C disagreed with the council's view, that disagreement was not evidence of an administrative failing by the council. There was no definition of what was regarded as satisfactory or acceptable condition, therefore, the matter came down to the professional judgement of council officers on whether the reinstatement was satisfactory. In the absence of evidence of an administrative failing, we could not question the council's decision. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.