Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the licensing arrangements for licensed premises adjacent to their property. They requested a Licensed Premises Review hearing as they felt that the level of late night noise coming from the premises contravened a condition of the premises license. This review was considered by the licensing board. Mr and Mrs C complained about the actions of the licensing standards officer and the clerk to the licensing board prior to a licensing board meeting to consider the review. This meeting related to changes to the operation of the premises. We found that the council were unable to provide documentation to evidence that the administrative process of approval for these changes of operation had been followed. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr and Mrs C also complained about the Licensing Premises Review hearing and the information that had been considered during the review hearing. We found that Mr and Mrs C had been represented at the hearing and found no evidence that council officers had acted unreasonably in relation to the information presented to the review hearing. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C that the administrative process of approval for changes to the operation of the premises adjacent to their property had not been appropriately followed. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines onmaking an apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Licensing Standard Officers should document the administrative process of approval for applications for minor variations and the reasoning behind decisions.

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 council's management of a multi-use games area (MUGA) near her home. When the council provided Ms C with their formal response they said that they were unable to reach a conclusion on whether she and her neighbours were affected by anti-social behaviour from users of the games area. They also promised some specific actions as a result of their investigations. Ms C complained to us that a council employee had given details of her complaint to other members of the public. She also complained that the council's decision that they were unable to reach a conclusion about anti-social behaviour was unreasonable and that, almost a year after their response, the council had not undertaken the promised actions.

We found that there was no clear evidence that the council employee had given details about the complaint to members of the public and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In response to our enquiries on their decision about anti-social behaviour, the council told us that there had been no indication of significant anti-social behaviour. We therefore concluded that it had been possible for them to reach a conclusion on that element of Ms C's complaints and we upheld her complaint about this.

We found that, in their complaint response, the council had said they would engage a specialist acoustic counsultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise. They also said that they would arrange for ball catch netting to be installed at the MUGA. We found that they had not fulfilled these actions. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should apologise to Ms C that they:
• unreasonably decided that it was not possible to reach a conclusion on whether Ms C and her neighbours were affected by anti-social behaviour from users of the multi-use games area;
• unreasonably failed to engage a specialist acoustic consultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise; and
• unreasonably failed to arrange for ball catch netting or any alternative to be installed at the multi-use games area within a reasonable timescale.
• The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Engage a specialist acoustic consultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise levels.

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 raised concerns about the way in which a social work review meeting, relating to his partner's elderly mother (Mrs A), was conducted. Mr C wanted the minutes of the previous meeting to be reviewed at the start so that he could raise points relating to that minute. This did not happen and Mr C raised this issue with the chairperson. Following discussions, the chairperson chose to suspend the meeting. Mr C complained that the council:

failed to reasonably address the genuine concerns raised by Mr C and his partner about inaccuracies in the previous minute;

unreasonably terminated the meeting stating that it was due to Mr C's behaviour;

unreasonably failed to obtain independent evidence of Mr C's behaviour at the meeting before responding to the complaint; and

unreasonably failed to confirm the council's policy on the roles and responsibilities of a chairperson when responding to the complaint.

We found that it was reasonable that a chairperson should be able to conduct a meeting as they saw fit, provided they met the purpose of that meeting. However, we considered that the chairperson should have clearly communicated how the meeting was to be conducted. This should have included reference to the fact that the previous minute of a meeting would not be addressed because the chairperson had not been present at that meeting. The chairperson should also have stated who would have been able to address any queries about the previous minute. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to Mr C's behaviour, we agreed that the council were not required to seek a second opinion from another person present at the meeting. We found that if a chairperson felt they could not carry out the purpose of a meeting due to the actions of someone present then they were entitled to suspend that meeting. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

We found that, whilst the council did not have a policy on how meetings should be conducted, it had an accepted practice. This included that the chairperson should read and make reference to previous minutes but recognised that this is not always possible. As the council does not have a policy on this, it was not able to provide Mr C with a copy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C, his partner and Mrs A for failing to address the concerns raised by Mr C about the previous minutes. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at 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

Mr C was concerned that the council had not reasonably assessed whether the structural stability and provision of natural light to his house met the tolerable standard in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act, and that the council had not reasonably considered whether to exercise powers under the Roads (Scotland) Act in relation to a footpath outside his home.

We found that no request for an assessment of tolerable standard had been made by Mr C, and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had correctly concluded that the Roads (Scotland) Act did not apply to the footpath outside Mr C's house, as it had not been adopted by them and they were not responsible for its maintenance. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council on behalf of her sister-in-law (Mrs A). Mrs C and Mrs A previously lived together in a private let along with their respective husbands and six children between them. Mrs C also provided care for Mrs A. After receiving a notice to quit from their landlord, Mrs A presented as homeless and asked for both family units to be rehoused together. The council advised that they were not able to provide temporary accommodation large enough and would struggle to provide permanent accommodation if they were rehoused together. After carrying out further assessment, including an occupational therapy assessment, the council insisted that Mrs C and Mrs A would have to submit two separate homeless applications. Mrs C complained that they were not able to submit a single homeless application. In addition to this, she complained about the staff attitude and the service they had received from the council.

After reviewing the council's records and the relevant legislation and guidance, we decided that it was reasonable for the council to insist on two separate homeless applications. We considered this to be reasonable as the families had only started living together relatively recently and that, in the council's opinion, there was no clear medical or social care evidence indicating that the families could not live apart. We also found that being rehoused together may result in both families having to stay in temporary accommodation for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In regards to the service received, we found that one record of phone contact used inappropriate wording when describing Mrs C's actions. We highlighted to the council the importance of using neutral, non-subjective language in their records. However, we concluded that there was not enough independent, verifiable evidence to suggest that the council's service was inappropriate or unreasonable. It was also noted that the council had attempted to find a suitable housing outcome for both families. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint but did provide feedback to the council about how they record contact with service users.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of his client (Miss A). Miss A had complained to the council that they should have allowed her an extension to her tenancy to allow her to clear out her belongings when she was vacating her property. She had also complained that the council did not properly charge her for the rechargeable works they carried out to clear the property after she vacated. She also complained that the council coerced her to agree to leaving her belongings and did not disclose to her how much she would be charged for the removal of her belongings.

In their response to Miss A's complaints, the council confirmed that they had extended Miss A's tenancy to allow her time to remove her belongings and that she had not made them aware of any exceptional circumstances to grant a further extension. They did not consider they had coerced Miss A to agree to leave her belongings and they believed that the works carried out to clear her property were properly incurred given the condition of the property at the time. They did, following an inspection of the invoiced works, reduce the amount due by Miss A as they identified works that she should not be responsible for. Miss A was not happy with this response and Mr C subsequently brought her complaints to us.

We established that the council had provided Miss A with an extension of two weeks to her tenancy. We did not find any record of Miss A noting any exceptional circumstances to the council at the time, indeed Miss A had communicated to the council confirming the dates by which she would remove her belongings. On this basis, we concluded that the council had provided Miss A with an extension to her tenancy and had acted reasonably in the circumstances. With respect to the rechargeable repairs carried out by the council, we saw evidence that the property was inspected and that Miss A was aware of the works she was to carry out prior to leaving. We were satisfied that photos of the property provided evidencing the condition of the property when Miss A left, together with the details of the inspection, indicated a significant amount of work needed to be undertaken to clear the property. We found that the council acted correctly in reducing their invoice following the complaint made by Miss A, but we were satisfied that the works completed were reasonable and reflective of the condition of the property. As such, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to implement the recommendations of a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC had been held and, despite a statutory timeframe of 42 days within which the recommendations should have been considered, the council did not consider the recommendations for six months. In terms of the complaints handling procedure in place at the time, the recommendations had to be reported for consideration by a council committee. The council's position was that this had been hampered by the intervening local elections and recess period, but we considered the delay to be unreasonable. We also considered that the council should have kept Mrs C updated with an explanation for the delay and advice as to likely timescales for implementing the recommendations. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for not keeping her updated with regards to likely timescales and for not providing an explanantion for the delay in implementing the recommendations.

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

• The council should be mindful of the importance of keeping complainants updated.

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 failed to provide their school transport drivers with child protection awareness training. Mr C reported an incident involving his daughter and the school bus driver to the council and, following an investigation, questioned why the bus driver had not received any training regarding child protection. The council confirmed that their policy states child protection awareness training is only a requirement for bus drivers who transport children with additional needs.

We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser referred to the relevant national guidance and identified that training should be provided to all adults, including school bus drivers, who have regular contact with children as part of their job. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint. Before our investigation reached a conclusion, the council acknowledged that they failed to take into account the guidance and confirmed that they have already taken steps to remedy the situation. We recommended the council apologise to Mr C and to provide our office with an update on the progress of their improvements.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). When Ms A moved between local authority areas she was unhappy about aspects of how her new council had handled that transition. Complaints were raised on her behalf about this, and these were eventually determined by a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC made recommendations that the council accepted. However, Ms A was unhappy with how the council had handled her complaints and the actions they took to carry out the recommendations of the CRC. Ms C brought these complaints to us.

We found that the council had not responded to a significant complaint that had been raised on Ms A's behalf and had not carried out the recommendations of the CRC in a reasonable way, or in the way they had told Ms A that they would. We found that they had not considered Ms A's situation at a specific meeting when they said they would, and that they did not inform Ms A that her case was not discussed at the meeting. In light of this, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Ms A with an apology for:
• her poor experience during her initial transition of local authorities
• their failure to provide her with an apology for her poor experience in their previous apology letter
• not promptly alerting her and apologising to her that her case was not considered at a specific meeting where they said it would be discussed.

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

• The council should undertake a meaningful review of their processes for clients transitioning from other local authorities, supported at corporate level.
• The council should re-issue guidance in relation to communication and a person-centred approach towards transitions from one local authority area to another.

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 MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A). A council operative was instructed to clear a number of garages and dispose of the contents. The council operative opened Mr A's garage in error, cleared it and disposed of the items within it. Mr A realised that this had happened two days later and contacted the council. Mr A complained and the council admitted the error and advised Mr A to submit a claim for compensation for the disposed of items. This was handled by the council's claims handlers. They offered Mr A less than he had claimed for, as he could not provide proof of exactly what was in the garage.

Mr C complained to our office that the council had not taken reasonable precautions to ensure the correct garage was cleared and had not reasonably investigated his complaint.

We found the council had not carried out a sufficient investigation into how the mistake had occurred and it was still not clear how it had happened. We also determined that the council's claims handlers had therefore not been provided with sufficient information about the incident. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A for failing to take reasonable precuations to prevent the incorrect garage from being cleared. Also apologise for failing to carry out a detailed eough investigation to identify what had happened. These apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Re-investigate the course of the error and provide a copy of their report to the claims handlers. They should also include what appears to be a reasonable list of items provided by Mr A that were removed from the garage.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be investigated thoroughly.

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.