Local Government

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable standard of care to his elderly father (Mr A). Mr C said that care provision was often changed at short notice and that his father was left unattended for unreasonable periods of time. Mr C was concerned that contact with the council was always by phone and he felt that inadequate records had been kept of his concerns about the service. Mr C complained that communication from the council was inappropriate as mail was sent to Mr A, despite his lack of capacity and repeated requests for it to be sent directly to him instead. Mr C was also concerned that the council failed to handle his complaints reasonably.

We found that the overall standard of care provided to Mr A by the council was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also found that the standard of record-keeping, on their electronic records system 'Caretrack', was inconsistent and that the council had failed to communicate reasonably with Mr C by not providing confirmation of changes in planned care provision in writing. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that Mr C now had an email contact he could use.

Finally, we found that Mr C's complaints had not been handled reasonably as there was no clear evidence that the council had followed through on the actions they had said that they would take. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Mr A's care provision should be monitored for eight weeks to ensure that notification is provided when a carer is likely to be late or his care appointment time has to be changed.

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

• Staff should ensure that Caretrack is an up-to-date and complete record of all contact.
• The operations team should provide a response to Mr C's request for written confirmation of contact with them.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council should include the definition of a complaint contained within the SPSO model complaints handling procedure in their care service handbook.

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 reinstatement works at the site of a former opencast mine. Mr C accesses his home via a road that runs adjacent to the site and he complained that the council unreasonably considered a development to be permitted when it did not satisfy the correct requirements. When Mr C first raised his concerns, the council maintained their position about the planning status of the land, until the council reversed their view two years later. Mr C also complained that they failed to consider the risk of flooding when granting the works permitted development status. He said that access to his home was sometimes impossible as flood water remained on his access road and did not drain away as previously. Finally, Mr C felt that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a chartered town planner. We found that the council had been presented with sufficient information around the time of Mr C's initial concerns to determine that planning consent was required. Instead they determined that the proposed works constituted permitted development. It was only two years later after protracted correspondence that they accepted there had been an error. Therefore, a number of processes and consultations, which should have occurred, did not. We considered the fact that, had the works been properly assessed, the council should have explicitly considered the use of their powers in relation to flooding. We also found that Mr C had been given incorrect information regarding the role of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

In dealing with Mr C's complaint we found that there was very extensive correspondence; however, there had been some delays in the council responding and Mr C and he was not always kept updated. For these reasons, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to correctly assess the development; providing incorrect advice regarding SEPA's role; and failing to explicitly consider the use of their powers in relation to flooding. 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:

• Proposed development should be assessed in line with applicable planning legislation, guidance, circulars and policy.
• Potential flood issues should be properly assessed.

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 support provided to her children (Child A and Child B) by their primary school. In particular, she considered that Child A did not receive enough support to cope with stressful situations. Mrs C considered that Child B was not appropriately monitored to see if they needed additional support. Mrs C also complained about the primary school's communication with her and other agencies about this, as well as about their record-keeping. In addition, she was dissatisfied with how her complaint was handled by the council.

We found that the primary school followed the appropriate staged intervention process to identify and implement the children's additional support needs. We did not find evidence of the primary school's communication being unreasonable. Although we found some errors in the school's minutes of meetings Mrs C attended, we did not find evidence that their records were significantly inaccurate. We found that there was a delay in the council acknowledging Mrs C's complaint and that they should have condensed their requests for information from Mrs C into a more manageable format. However, overall we found that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

We considered that, given the concerns that Mrs C raised, the council should have informed her that she could request an assessment for a coordinated support plan and that they should have signposted her to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal, so we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

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

• Where appropriate, information should be provided on how to request an assessment for a coordinated support plan. There should also be appropriate signposting to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal.

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's application for a blue badge was refused by the council. At the end of the appeals process Mr C raised detailed concerns about the assessment and the application of the guidelines. The council responded to the complaint by re-stating the decision to refuse the blue badge and addressing various other points raised with respect to the process. Mr C was unhappy with the response and brought his complaint to us. Mr C complained that the council failed to demonstrate that they took into account the information he provided in relation to his appeals and that they failed to address the specific points raised in his complaint.

We found that the correspondence between the council and Mr C showed that the council had taken into account Mr C's information, and supporting evidence, when considering his appeals. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. We did, however, provide feedback to the council that further explanation for decision to refuse applications, with specific reference to relevant guidelines, may help clarify their decision making.

In regards to the councils complaints handling, we found that their response to Mr C's complaint failed to address any of the points that he had raised with respect to the assessment process or inconsistencies in application of the guidelines to his circumstances. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Mr C with a further response that appropriately addresses the complaints raised in his letter.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Council staff should be reminded of the complaints handling procedure and the importance of ensuring people are directed to register their concerns as complaints where appropriate.

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 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.