Local Government

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.

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.