Local Government

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to take the appropriate action in response to her reports of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had investigated Ms C's complaints in line with their procedures. Whilst we noted that Ms C does not wish to continue living at her property, the council have not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour, therefore they cannot be required to take any enforcement action. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council dealt with his application for payment of a home improvement grant for his mother. Mr C had not received a receipt from the contractor who had carried out the work, so he had submitted other evidence as proof of payment. Mr C complained that the council:

unreasonably refused to make payment of the full grant, despite receiving evidence that he had paid the contractor in full

failed to advise him that the documents that he had provided as evidence of payment were insufficient

unreasonably failed to verify whether his documents, or the documents that they had received from the contractor, were accurate in order to establish if payment for the works had been carried out

unreasonably failed to clarify in their response to his complaint why he had not been advised of what would have been an acceptable proof of payment.

We found that it was reasonable that the council did not accept the proof of payment provided by Mr C, as it was not an official bank statement, and that they therefore did not pay the full grant until further evidence was received. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we considered that the council could have been more helpful in that they could have advised Mr C of what documentation they would accept as proof of payment. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that it would not be reasonable to expect council staff to seek to independently verify the legitimacy of any document it received which did not meet the requirements set out in the booklet issued with every grant awarded. This would be impractical and in some cases, not possible, due to data protection restrictions. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also noted that the failure to advise Mr C of what would be acceptable proof of payment was not identified in the council's handling of the complaint and so we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him of what would constitute sufficient evidence of payment. Also apologise for failing to acknowledge this in their response to his complaint.

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

• Staff should advise service users who are unable to obtain a receipt from a contractor exactly what may be accepted as sufficient proof of payment in the absence of a receipt, rather than telling them what will not be accepted.

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 to the council that the head teacher of her son's primary school had failed to follow correct procedures when they contacted social services regarding concerns about her son. She also did not consider that the head teacher had communicated with her appropriately when they informed her of her son's potential exclusion from school during what she considered to be an informal meeting with the class teacher.

The council met with Ms C to discuss her complaint and confirmed in their initial response that the head teacher had acted appropriately in contacting social services following a disclosure made to a member of staff. The council confirmed that, in order to protect and maintain confidentiality, they were unable to discuss the nature of the disclosure with her. With regards to the meeting informing Ms C of the possibility of exclusion should her son's behaviour not improve, they confirmed that the meeting was in keeping with previous interactions she had with the school and was therefore appropriate and in line with their procedures. Ms C was not satisfied and brought her complaint to us. In addition to the complaints about procedures and communication, Ms C also complained to us that the council's response to her complaint was unreasonable.

We concluded that, based on the records taken at the time regarding the disclosures made by Ms C's son, the head teacher had acted appropriately in contacting social services to discuss the concerns. We found that the head teacher acted in line with child protection policy and, given the nature of the disclosures made, was correct in not sharing the details with Ms C. In relation to the separate and unrelated matter of the potential exclusion of her son, it was clear that the school had complied with relevant policies regarding the management of pupil behaviour and that the communication with Ms C was appropriate in the circumstances. We concluded the council had acted appropriately and did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

With respect to the complaints responses issued by the council, we found that their two stage two complaints responses were issued a several days outside of the required timescales and that they did not communicate the delays with Ms C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint and, while we did not make a recommendation, we requested that the council remind staff who deal with complaints of the importance to comply with timescales and communicate with complainants effectively.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way that the council dealt with repairs relating to a leak in the roof of his council tenancy. He told us that there had been considerable delays to complete the roof works required and that this had led to extensive damage to the plaster in one of his bedrooms. He said that the council told him that he would be responsible for the works internally and so he began carrying out the necessary repairs, stripping the plaster from the walls. Whilst this work was in progress, he told us that a council officer attended his property and told him to stop the works immediately. The council then completed the works and recharged Mr C for the cost, which he felt was unreasonable.

We found that there had been a period of around six months from the date the repairs were first reported until the roof works were totally complete. However, the council initially carried out a minor repair within two days, which they believed had stopped the leak. We saw no evidence that Mr C had contacted the council to report that the leak persisted and they only became aware that further works were required three months after the initial repair, when visiting to investigate reports of unauthorised works. At this visit, they found that the plaster had been removed from two of the walls in the bedroom and the electrics had been damaged.

We found that the council then instructed a report, which identified that fairly major masonry works were required, necessitating extensive scaffolding. They accepted that there was some degree of delay in completing these works, but explained that this was due to poor weather and a high demand for roofing contractors. On balance, we did not consider that there was an unreasonable delay, given the extent of the works required. We also considered that they were entitled to recharge Mr C for the works required to the bedroom, as there was no evidence that he had contacted them to request these repairs before carrying them out himself, which he was required to do under the terms of his tenancy agreement. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

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.