Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained about matters at her school. Ms C's mother had complained to the council about a number of issues on Ms C's behalf, including alleged bullying and the way the council investigated this matter. Ms C's mother was unhappy with the council's response to her complaint and Ms C then complained to us.

Ms C complained to us that the council failed to conduct their investigation of the complaint to a reasonable standard. We found that the council had taken the step of taking Ms C out of a class in which she had made allegations of racial discrimination against the teachers. We found that this was reasonable as, in taking this step, the council had regard for both Ms C and the teachers against whom the allegations were made. We found that the relevant people had been interviewed and that measures had been taken to try to resolve matters by way of offering mediation and counselling. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council had failed to communicate appropriately with herself and her family in relation to her complaint. We found failings in the way the council had communicated with Ms C and her family. English is not Ms C's first language, or the first language of her family. We found that the council had, on some occasions when a translator was not available, allowed Ms C to translate for her family. However, we found that this is in breach of their policy on interpreting and translation. We found that the council could have considered other options when a translator was not available, such as using a phone translation service. We also considered that the council's communication in their stage two complaint response was poor. We found that they did not explain the steps taken to investigate the complaint in order to justify their decision. We also found that they should have been clearer about the steps they were taking to resolve matters. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for the failings in communication. This apology should be in line with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology.

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

• Council staff should ensure that they comply with the terms of the interpreting and translation policy. Consideration should be given to the use of phone translation services on occasions when there is an immediate, unexpected need for translation.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Stage two complaint responses should be detailed, setting out information about the investigation and showing clear reasoning for the decisions reached.

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 complained about delays in the council's response to her request for them to fix a leak. She complained that the work was not completed until seven months after her request. Miss C was also unhappy as she felt the level of communication from the council during this time was poor.

The council told us that the delay in repairing the leak was caused by difficulties in accessing the property above Miss C's, as this was the source of the leak. However, they acknowledged that the delays in completing the repair were unacceptable. They also recognised that it took a significant amount of time to complete decoration and plastering work after the leak was fixed, although they believed this was down to Miss C not being readily available. The council acknowledged that they did not make attempts to explore alternative arrangements to access the property in Miss C's absence. The council also accepted that Miss C had not received appropriate communications throughout her experience, and they advised that staff training had been planned to address failings in this area.

We upheld both of Miss C's complaints. We found that the delays in carrying out the work were unreasonable, and we noted insufficiencies in the council's process. We found that Miss C was given conflicting information from different members of staff, and that she was not regularly updated on what was happening with her repair. As the work had been completed by the time Miss C brought her complaint to us, we did not make further recommendations on this aspect of the complaint. As the council had committed to undertake training to address failings in communication, we did not make further recommendations in this regard, though we did ask the council for evidence that this training had been carried out.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for the delay in dealing with the repair and for the poor level of communication throughout the process. 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 complained about the council's handling of a planning application to extend a restaurant near his home. Mr C was concerned that a parking policy had not been taken into account when determining the application and that the planning service had not waited on a consultation response from the roads service at the council before approving the application. During their own consideration of the case, the council accepted that parking had not been covered in the planning officer's report for the application and they apologised for this failing.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence that the relevant policy for parking had been considered when determining the planning application. While there was no statutory requirement to await a roads service consultation response before determining the application, the advice we received highlighted that proceeding without all the relevant information was a key shortcoming. However, there was no evidence that proceeding without the consultation response made any difference to the council's decision to approve the application. On balance, we upheld the complaint. However, based on the advice we received, we did not consider that there was any further action that the council were required to take in respect of the application. We did make a recommendation to ensure that material considerations and relevant policies are taken into account when determining a planning application in the future.

Recommendations

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

• All material considerations should be taken into account when determining a planning application. The correct policies should be identified and referenced in the report of handling.

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 had fallen into arrears with his council tax. The council referred Mr C's debt to a sheriff officer and debt collection service, however they later withdrew the account and advised Mr C that they were beginning sequestration proceedings (the action of taking legal possession of assets). Mr C said that he felt that the council's approach was unsympathetic and that they were not understanding of his circumstances.

Mr C complained to us that the council had not appropriately informed him of the outstanding council tax payment from a number of years previously. He also complained that the council had failed to advise him of his entitlement to council tax reduction and that they had unreasonably failed to honour his agreement with the debt collection agency.

We found that the council's records show that Mr C was in contact with them for a number of years regarding his outstanding debt, so it was evident that he was aware of it. We also found that the council had advised Mr C to apply for council tax reduction on a number of occasions over a period of years. We also found that the council sent a recorded delivery letter to inform Mr C that they were pursuing sequestration. After they received confirmation that the letter had been received, the council cancelled the account with the debt collection agency. We considered that the council had followed the correct procedure in this regard. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mr A who is a kinship carer for his nephew (child B). Following the death of child B's mother, Mr A stepped forward and agreed to became his nephew's carer when no other family members were available. Mr A applied to the council for kinship care allowance (financial support which is available for those who are caring for a child who has a looked after status, who has previously had looked after status, who has been placed with involvement from the local authority or who is at risk of becoming looked after). The council did not award the allowance on the basis that child B had not been previously looked after and was not at risk of being looked after. Mrs C complained that this decision was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser noted that the council did not carry out any assessment of Mr A or child B's needs. It was the adviser's view, which we accepted, that had Mr A not come forwards, child B would have undoubtedly have been received into care. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Carry out an assessment of child B and Mr A's needs in order to determine whether the family are eligible for, or require, kinship care assistance.

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 the safety of his son (child A), at his former school. Child A has complex support needs, and Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate an incident involving his son leaving the school grounds unaccompanied. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to carry out a risk assessment of security at the school and had failed to appropriately follow child A's management plan in relation to his needs. In addition, Mr C raised concerns about a lack of communication and the way the council handled a placement request for his son.

We found that the council had carried out a reasonable investigation of the incident involving child A leaving the school grounds unaccompanied, and had taken action to try to prevent a similar situation arsing in the future. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

We were also satisfied that risk assessments had been carried out and so we did not uphold the complaint that the council had failed to carry out a risk assessment of security at the school. However, we were concerned that there was no documentary evidence of the rationale used by the council in reaching decisions arising from the risk assessment, particularly relating to supervision arrangements. We were also concerned that the roles and duties of non-teaching staff in relation to the supervision of pupils was not documented. We made recommendations in relation to these concerns.

We were provided with a copy of the relevant management plan detailing child A's needs and we found no evidence that this was not being followed. As such, we did not uphold the complaint relating to the management plan. We were also provided with evidence which demonstrated there had been extensive communication with Mr C and we did not uphold the complaint about a lack of communication.

Finally, we found no evidence that the placement request had not been handled in line with the Education, Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004 and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• There should be a written document or protocol setting out the roles and duties for non-teaching staff in relation to supervision arrangements.
• The rationale for decisions arising from a risk assessment should be documented.

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 the council's handling of roads consent on the housing estate he lived in. He told us that the roads were still not fully complete, despite the three year roads consent period having expired a number of years ago.

Under roads consent legislation, roads authorities (in this case the council) are supposed to secure a bond or deposit from any developer seeking to construct a road when issuing consent. The developer then has a three year period to complete the road before the consent expires. Come the expiry date, councils are either supposed to formally extend the consent or, if the consent expires, use the security bond or deposit to complete the works.

In response to our enquiries, the council confirmed that the works in question were now complete, but accepted a number of failings in this case. They explained that they had not ensured that security bonds or deposits were received for all the roads in the estate before issuing consent. While they took steps to pursue the developer for the missing bonds, by the time they sought to take formal action in this respect, some houses were completed and occupied. This meant that they were unable to close or divert the roads, which would be their normal recourse in this situation. They also failed to ensure that the consent was formally extended. Normally this would have meant that they would be responsible for completing the works. However, this was complicated by the failure to secure the necessary bonds or deposits and also by a planning condition, which specified that the permanent road surface was not to be completed until all building works were complete. This only took place within the last few months, at which point the council took steps to ensure the roads were completed as soon as practicable.

The council explained that they had implemented a number of procedural changes to ensure that similar mistakes were not repeated in future. This included:

ensuring that security bonds are received from developers before house building commences

ensuring that roads are stopped up before occupation if necessary

implementing regular expiration date checks to ensure consent does not lapse unnecessarily.

We were satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to Mr C's complaint and he agreed. We did not take our investigation any further.

Summary

Ms C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Mrs B) about the decision made by Mrs B's daughter (Miss A)'s school to exclude Miss A from attending an overseas trip. Miss A has a condition which is a disability under the Equalities Act 2010. The school understood Miss A's health to be particularly poor and had concerns about safely managing her condition during the trip. The school carried out an additional risk assessment and sought advice from the council, who advised that a parent or guardian should accompany Miss A, otherwise she should be excluded for safety reasons. Ultimately, a parent or guardian could not attend, and Miss A did not go on the trip. Ms C complained that the school failed to take all relevant information into account when they decided to remove Miss A from the trip. Ms C also raised concerns about how the school communicated the decision to exclude Miss A to Mrs B and Miss A.

We found that, due to their concerns about her health, it was reasonable that the school carried out an additional risk assessment about Miss A's attendance on the trip. However, we found that the school should have given Mrs B a timescale to provide medical documents, which they did not. We also found that, during the decision making process, the school should have discussed Miss A's health and the support she may need during the trip with her. We also considered that the decision to remove Miss A from the trip should have been communicated to her directly by the school, and it was not. We therefore upheld these two aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council did not take their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 into account in their handling of the matter. We took independent advice from an equalities adviser. The adviser considered that the school had made a reasonable adjustment by organising medical training for staff attending the trip. However, we found that this should have been organised at an earlier stage in planning the trip. The equalities adviser also considered that the council should have advised the school about their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 and their need to make reasonable adjustments. We found that the council did not advise the school of this. In addition, the equalities adviser said that the council's advice should have been tailored specifically to Miss A and her condition, which it was not. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs B and Miss A for:
• failing to obtain all relevant information in deciding whether to remove Miss A from the trip
• the shortcomings in how the decision was communicated to Miss A
• not taking their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 into account.
• 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:

• Young people should be allowed an opportunity to express their opinions and contribute in the decision making process for decisions which affect them.
• Staff training about managing pupil's health conditions should take place as early as is practical in organising a trip.
• The council's excursion policy should refer to the Equalities Act 2010 and give guidance on making reasonable adjustments to avoid discriminating against pupils with a disability.
• Council staff should be aware of their responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 and the need to make reasonable adjustments for pupils with a disability.
• Decisions about reasonable adjustments should be tailored to the individual concerned and how their condition specifically affects them.

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 to the council that they did not adequately respond to the repairs at his property relating to dampness and a faulty boiler. He also complained that the council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and failed to take into account his mental health when determining that he was intentionally homeless.

In their response to Mr C the council summarised the works carried out to the property. They said that the issues reported with regards to the boiler were resolved and that there was no issues with respect to dampness which would have made the property uninhabitable or would have caused the health problems Mr C had reported. With respect to the homelessness application, they reiterated the process that they had followed. Mr C was not happy with the response and brought his complaint to us.

We found that the council had adequately responded to reported faults at the property. Boiler works were carried out in accordance with their policy and, whilst there was a delay in providing a full reinstatement to flooring in the bathroom following an identified leak, this was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not cause the property to be uninhabitable.

With respect to the homelessness application, we were satisfied that the council properly assessed Mr C's circumstances, communicated with him effectively throughout the process, provided him with accommodation throughout and clarified points he raised at a review meeting. It was clear that the council obtained relevant information, particularly with respect to Mr C's health and mental health, and made their decision in accordance with appropriate policies and guidance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for external alterations to a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. The proposal was to increase the height of the roof of an existing utility building and associated works to create additional living space. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission subject to conditions. The first of these was that the development had to be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings.

Mr C was concerned that the council's decision had been procedurally flawed and based on inaccurate information. He complained to the council about this. At both stages of the council's complaints procedure the responses stated their conclusions that the decision had been taken properly and on the basis of accurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with these responses and raised his complaints with us.

We upheld Mr C's complaints that statements in the report were inaccurate (specifically statements that the pitch of the roof 'will match' the main house and that the rooflights will be 'invisible from a public area'); that the approved drawings associated with the application did not contain sufficient written dimensions to ensure that the precise location and scale of what was being proposed was clear; and that the council did not respond reasonably to some of Mr C's complaints. We did not uphold complaints that the evaluation of the application against relevant guidance was unreasonable or that the inadequacies of the report of handling meant that the decision on the application was unreasonable.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to some of his complaints about the handling of the application.
• Provide Mr C with a direct response to his complaint.
• Amend the approved drawings for the application to ensure the precise location and scale of what was being proposed, and has been approved, is clear.

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

• Relevant council staff should be reminded that statements of fact in reports of handling should be accurate.
• Relevant council staff should be reminded that approved drawings should be adequately dimensioned to ensure the precise location and scale of what is being proposed is clear.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Relevant council staff should be reminded that issues raised in complaints should be directly responded to.

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.