Local Government

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.

Summary

Miss C reported longstanding problems with her heating and hot water and had raised previous complaints with the council about this. The council had attended Miss C's property when repair requests were raised, but did not find any issues and left with the heating in working order. Miss C made a formal complaint as she was unhappy with these findings and was of the view that the problem remained unresolved. The council responded initially by advising that, as a full inspection of the heating system had been conducted four months previously, there was nothing further that they could do. Miss C escalated her complaint which prompted an inspection from the housing area team leader and a plumber. They identified several parts which needed replaced and arranged to do this. The council's complaint response offered an apology to Miss C for the delays and stress this had caused. Miss C was unhappy at the level of service she had received and she brought her complaints to us. Miss C complained to us that the council had:

unreasonably delayed in carrying out appropriate heating and hot water repairs, in line with their obligations

failed to communicate reasonably with her throughout the process

failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into her complaints.

We obtained information from the council and were of the view that, whilst the responses to individual repair requests were prompt, the level of investigation was not proportionate to the longstanding nature of the problem. When the council had the opportunity to review their practice at stage one in the complaints process, they declined to take further action based on information obtained four months previously. They also were late in acknowledging Miss C's complaint, and late in responding to her. The council explained that an extension had been agreed with Miss C, but acknowledged that they had not confirmed this in writing and therefore had no evidence of this. We upheld all aspects of Miss C's complaint and recommended that a full and sincere apology was offered for all failings by the council. We also noted that the council had advised that training on communication had been carried out and we asked them for evidence that this training was undertaken.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for:
• the unacceptable delay dealing with her repair
• the poor level of service provided, including the failings in communication and the failings in their response to her complaint
• the level of stress and upset this caused Miss C.
• The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on 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 is a council tenant and complained to the council about their failure to respond appropriately to his reports of his neighbour's anti-social behaviour. Mr C had been reporting anti-social behaviour for a number of years and the council started to take formal proceedings against the neighbour, however they stopped the action at a point, as they said that they received no further reports of anti-social behaviour from Mr C.

Mr C disputed this and received confirmation from Police Scotland of a number of reports that they had passed onto the council after the point when they had stopped the formal proceedings against the neighbour. Mr C complained that the council failed to inform him that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour.

In response to our investigation, the council acknowledged that they failed to investigate Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour. They also acknowledged that they should have informed Mr C that they were no longer pursuing formal action against his neighbour. The council confirmed that they were reviewing their anti-social behaviour procedures and they invited Mr C to a meeting so that they can apologise and discuss his concerns. We upheld Mr C's complaints and asked the council to provide evidence of the action they said they would take.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should apologise to Mr C for their failings and invite Mr C to a meeting to discuss his concerns further should he wish to accept.

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 made reports to the council of breaches of planning control. Some action was undertaken but Mr C was concerned that correspondence with him, and the action being taken, stopped abruptly. After a gap of a few months, Mr C contacted the council again. He was told that the officer who had been responsible for his case had been absent from work on a long-term basis and that a review of their caseload had not uncovered the case Mr C was involved in as one requiring further action. The council apologised for this and began further action on the matter. Mr C continued to correspond and submitted information requests. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions and raised his complaints with us.

Mr C complained to us that the council did not take reasonable action following his reports of breaches of planning control. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council's actions regarding the breaches of planning control Mr C reported were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint about this.

Mr C also complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to his correspondence or his complaints. We found that there had been delays and confusion around providing responses to Mr C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, as the council had already taken steps to remedy these matters, we did not make any additional recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained about how her application for accessible housing points (points awarded to someone to help them find an alternative property, on the basis that their current home is not suitable for their needs) was assessed.

We found that the council had appropriately arranged for an assessment by an occupational therapist. We found that this was in line with the council's procedures. We also found that, when Ms C had requested another assessment a year later, this was provided. The amount of points awarded was increased following this second assessment, as Ms C's ability to carry out normal tasks in her current home had deteriorated. We considered that this was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.