Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably refused to progress his complaint about social work matters to a complaints review committee (CRC). The council said that a CRC was not the appropriate route for the issues raised by Mr C and did not fall within the remit of the committee. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that Mr C's complaint was eligible to be progressed to a CRC and, therefore, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not holding a CRC. 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 now progress Mr C's complaint to a CRC.

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 was fourth on the waiting list for a taxi plate from the council and had been on the list for many years. However, when a plate became available it was given to a day-to-day manager who was not on the waiting list. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained.

We found that the council had no record of the decision taken to issue the plate to someone not on the waiting list. The staff who dealt with it were unavailable and there were no records. We also found that there was no clear policy in place which explains what should happen and what factors should be considered, when the council choose not to follow the normal allocation process. We considered that it was unreasonable that the council had no record of the decision that was made. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The council should now determine, without ambiguity, whether they were obliged to issue the plate to the day-to-day manager in these specific circumstances.
• The council should record all decisions to depart from the waiting list. This should include what evidence was considered and how the decision was made. The council should have a list of situations that could be considered as exceptional circumstances. This list should be made easily and publically available.

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Following the council's consideration of our first recommendation, they should tell Mr C where he is placed on the list. If they were not under a legal obligation to issue the plate to the day-today manager, then they should confirm Mr C's place on the list.

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 was first on the waiting list for a taxi plate from the council and had been on the list for many years. However, when a plate became available, Mr C did not receive it. He found that this had gone to a day-to-day manager who was not on the waiting list. Mr C complained that this decision was unreasonable.

We found that the council had no record of the decision taken to issue the plate to someone not on the waiting list. The staff who dealt with it were unavailable and there were no records. We also found that there is no clear policy that indicates what should happen, or what factors should be considered when not following the normal process of allocating a newly vacant plate to someone on the waiting list.

We decided it was unreasonable that the council had no record of the decision that was made or their reasoning for that decision. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The council should now determine, without ambiguity, whether they were obliged to issue the plate to the day-to-day manager in these specific circumstances.
• The council should record all decisions to depart from the waiting list. This should include what evidence was considered and how the decision made. The council should have a list of situations that could be considered as exceptional circumstances. This list should be made easily and publically available.

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Following the council's consideration of our first recommendation, they should tell Mr C what their decision is. If they were not under a legal obligation to issue the plate to the day-to-day manager, then they should consider how to remedy the injustice done to Mr C.

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 follow their policies and procedures before raising court action against him for recovery of rent arrears. He complained that the council had failed to take his family circumstances into account when deciding to raise court action against him.

We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures, with one minor exception for which the council had already apologised. Mr C had not made any contribution to his rent over more than two months, and although he had offered to pay some rent at the end of the third month of the tenancy, we found that the council were entitled to find this offer unreasonable. We also noted that the council had agreed to review the court action if regular payments were commenced. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about how the proceeds from the sale of her mother's house were apportioned between Mrs C's family and care home fees. The matter was considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), after which Mrs C brought her complaints to us.

Mrs C complained that the council handled the CRC unreasonably. She had concerns about the CRC panel's interaction with the social work representatives who attended the hearing and she felt that these interactions called the CRC panel's impartiality into question. The CRC procedure did, however, allow the panel to ask questions of those present at the CRC, which included Mrs C and the social work department. We did not consider the evidence indicated that the CRC was handled unreasonably. We did not uphold the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide adequate reasons for the CRC's decision not to uphold her underlying complaint. Although we acknowledged that the report they had produced was concise, it did detail the two specific points of complaint that Mrs C had agreed to in advance of the hearing. We also felt that their explanation, while brief, was clear that they did not agree with the case Mrs C had put forward. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mrs A) that the council wrongly reported Mrs A to the Office of Public Guardian (OPG). Mrs A has power of attorney for her mother and contacted the council after her father died, to request a financial re-assessment for her mother. Mrs A completed a financial assessment form and recorded that her mother had had a property which she sold. The council requested information regarding the net proceeds of the property sale on a number of occasions, however, Mrs A failed to provide this information. After a number of attempts to obtain the information, the council reported an adult protection concern to social work which resulted in a referral to the OPG. Mr C believes the council acted unreasonably and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser confirmed that the council have a duty to raise an adult protection concern and to contact the OPG if the financial management of the adult’s capital is unknown. Therefore, we did not consider the council wrongly reported Mrs A to the OPG and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C owns a property in a block of four. Some of the other properties in the block were believed to be owned by the council. Miss C complained that work undertaken on her property was not in line with the agreed mandate and that the council failed to provide her with appropriate information in relation to the works.

The council's Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners procedure provides information on the steps to be followed when a repair has been identified as shared with the owner of a private property. The council contacted all owners in Miss C's block giving a quote to paint the exterior of the property. The letter said that it was a notification of shared repair, and it enclosed a mandate which, when signed, indicated agreement to the council taking the lead on the repair. The council ultimately painted the exterior of Miss C's property, but none of the others in her block as the other occupiers had not agreed to the work being carried out. Miss C complained to the council that she only agreed to the work being carried out because she understood that all of the properties in the block were going to be painted. She said that if she had been made aware that the work was not going to be carried out on the whole block, she would not have signed the mandate, and that at no time had she agreed to being the only property to be painted.

The council said that the mandate signed by Miss C was not conditional on the agreement of other owners in the block. We found that the work carried out was not in line with the original mandate, as the original mandate had confirmed Miss C's agreement to shared repairs being carried out. We considered that, when it became clear that the other owners were not going ahead with the work, the council should have checked whether Miss C still wanted to go ahead. During the course of our investigation, it became clear that in fact none of the properties in Miss C's block were owned by the council. Therefore, the council were not in a position to invoke their Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners Procedure. We considered that there had been maladministration at every step in the process, and we upheld both of Miss C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for the work carried out on her property not having been in line with the agreed mandate, ensuring that the apology meets the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise for failing to provide Miss C with appropriate information in relation to the works, ensuring that the apology meets the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise for unreasonably following their Shared Repairs – Mutual Owners Procedure in relation to repairs at Miss C's block, despite not owning any properties in the block. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Cancel the invoice for the works, or reimburse Miss C for any sums paid in relation to the work carried out at her property.

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

• The Tenement Management Scheme should be followed appropriately, ensuring that the Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners procedure is not unreasonably followed.
• The Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners Procedure and associated letters should be reviewed, and revised in the event that this is necessary.

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 applied to be kinship carers for a child related to them. A kinship care assessment was produced by the social work department and it recommended that Mr and Mrs C should not be approved as kinship carers. Mr and Mrs C complained that the content of the report and the recommendation made was unreasonable. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's response and brought their complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker who highlighted that the term 'person of concern' had been used to describe Mrs C within the document and that this was unreasonable. The council acknowledged this was unreasonable as it was not a term they would normally use. While there was issues with precise wording, we found that the information included in the document and the recommendation made was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the smell coming from local industrial premises. After monitoring the situation, the council identified a statutory nuisance and issued an abatement notice to the owners of the company concerned. The company did not meet their original compliance date, however, a couple of months later the council confirmed that the problem of odour had been satisfactorily addressed and that as no recent complaints had been made, the company had complied with the notice.

Mr C disagreed that the odour had been addressed and continued to make complaints. He complained to the council about their failure to deal reasonably with his concerns. The council felt that no statutory nuisance remained and that no further complaints had been made. Mr C complained to us that he was unhappy with the council's reply to his complaint and that it contained incorrect information.

We took independent advice from a chartered environmental health officer. We found that the council had taken reasonable action in responding to Mr C's complaints by carrying out full investigations, issuing the correct notices, monitoring the action taken and keeping Mr C updated on the process. While the council subsequently took the view that the statutory nuisance had been remedied, Mr C continued to complain. However, assessment after Mr C's further complaints led the council to confirm that the level of odour was acceptable. Therefore, we did not find the council's response to Mr C's complaint to be unreasonable and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, in writing to him, the council had said that no further complaints were made after they confirmed the nuisance had abated. This was incorrect in that Mr C maintained his complaints. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for providing him with incorrect information. 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

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) who felt that she had been financially disadvantaged by delays in the council completing a kinship carer assessment. Miss A was undergoing assessment to be a kinship carer but was looking after the children while the assessment was ongoing. Miss A received payments from the council but believed some of these were calculated incorrectly. Specifically, she felt that one-off payments made prior to the referral for kinship care being made should not have been included in the calculation of financial support. The council acknowledged that there had been delays in the completing of the kinship care assessment but did not feel that Miss A had been financially disadvantaged during the process. Miss A was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council was correct to include some of the one-off payments when calculating the financial support. However, we noted that the kinship assessment was delayed by a number of weeks. This meant that Miss A did not receive her kinship carer allowance as early as she would have if the assessment was completed on time. Therefore, we considered that Miss A had been financially disadvantaged due to the council's delay and upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Pay Miss A the outstanding amount caused by the delay in completing a kinship care assessment.

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

• The council should amend their kinship care policy to clearly reflect the legislation.

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.