Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of two of their children (Master A and Miss A), who have additional support needs. They complained that the council failed to provide the children with adequate educational support, that they had failed to follow their anti-bullying policy in relation to Master A, and that their investigation of the complaint was unreasonable. They also complained that the head teacher of the children's school had made an inappropriate referral to the social work department.

In response to our enquiry the council provided us with the children's pastoral care notes, the children's wellbeing assessments and plans, and the relevant council policies. We found that the council mostly appeared to have followed their policies when providing the children with educational support but we noted that neither Mr and Mrs C, nor the children, had been consulted in relation to the children's wellbeing assessments and plans, which is in line with council policies. However, we did not consider that this was in itself enough to uphold the complaints.

In relation to the complaint about bullying, it was clear that there was a difference in opinion between the council and Mr and Mrs C. Mr and Mrs C considered that Master A had experienced a number of incidences of bullying, but the council disagreed and had therefore not recorded the events as bullying. In relation to one incident involving another child that had been recorded, we considered that the council had dealt with the matter appropriately and in line with their anti-bullying policy.

We were critical of the way in which the council had investigated this complaint. Mrs C had to chase a response and the council's initial response to her was very brief. We considered that the investigation could have been carried out more clearly and transparently.

In relation to the social work referral we found that contact had been made in an informal way with a view to supporting the family, and we therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for failing to consult with Mr and Mrs C, or Master A, in relation to Master A's wellbeing assessment and plan.
• Apologise for failing to consult with Mr and Mrs C, or Miss A, in relation to Miss A's wellbeing assessment and plan.
• Apologise for the failings in the complaint investigation. All apologies should comply with SPSO guidance on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be confident in identifying and escalating complaints, and should provide details of their investigations when responding to complaints.

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 and Mrs C raised a number of complaints about the council regarding various housing repairs. They complained that the council did not issue an invoice for a repair that was carried out until 18 months later and they felt that this delay was unreasonable. They also complained that the council unreasonably required them to provide receipts as proof of purchase when they were trying to submit an insurance claim for damage caused to their property. They did not think it was reasonable to expect tenants to retain receipts for items that were purchased a number of years ago. They also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in completing a communal repair to the chimney at their property.

The council acknowledged that they delayed in issuing the invoice for the repair and they agreed to cancel it. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The council confirmed that they will accept forms of evidence other than receipts when considering an insurance claim. We found that the letter provided with the insurance form does not provide clear information in this regard. We upheld this part of the complaint.

The council explained that the repair to the chimney was categorised as a non-emergency repair and that it therefore had no timescale attached to it. The council confirmed that, at the time of our investigation, the repair order had been sent to the contractor and that they would expect the repair to be completed soon. We found the council's actions to be reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for unreasonably delaying in sending them an invoice for a repair. Also apologise for failing to provide clear information on how to submit an insurance claim.

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

• The information provided by the council with insurance claim forms should be reviewed to ensure that customers are aware that other forms of evidence may be accepted if receipts are not available.

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 planning consent for an extension to a house on a neighbouring site. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to carry out a reasonable assessment of the impact on his privacy.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council, as planning authority, had processed the planning application in accordance with the correct policy and procedure, and that a reasonable assessment of the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties was carried out. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mr C considered that the works carried out at his home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled his complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mr C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold his complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and that there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mr C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these.

We also found that Mr C's complaint had been handled in line with the council's complaints handling procedure. Consequently, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mrs C considered that the works carried out at her home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled her complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mrs C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold her complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mrs C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these. However, we found that in responding to Mrs C's official complaint, the council failed to respond within the 20 working days specified in their complaints handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to respond to her concerns or give an appropriate update within the timescales laid out in their complaints handling procedure. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure. Any revised timescale should be agreed with the complainant or approved by senior staff in line with the policy and the reasons for this explained to the complainant.

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 that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out on her home by a third party company. Mrs C considered that the works carried out at her home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled her complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mrs C's concerns about oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold her complaint about this. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and that there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mrs C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these.

We did, however, uphold Mrs C's complaint about the way the council had handled her complaint. We found that the council accepted that Mrs C's initial complaint had not been dealt with appropriately in terms of their complaints handling procedure. We also found that Mrs C had not received a response to her complaint within the prescribed timescales and that, while she had been contacted about the delay, a revised timescale was not offered. This was not in line with the council's complaints handling procedure. We made recommendations to address these issues.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the failings in complaints handling. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure. Any revised timescale should be agreed with the complainant or approved by senior staff in line with the policy and the reasons for this explained to the complainant.

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 as he was not happy with their response to his repair request relating to damp in his property. Mr C had previously experienced damp in the property and the council had attended and made repairs. The problem returned approximately six weeks later and Mr C had reported it again to the council. They attended the property and it was found that the cavity wall insulation had deteriorated. The council arranged to have this replaced.

Mr C was of the view that the poor quality of the cavity wall insulation was the main cause of damp in the property, and he believed this should have been identified and remedied by the council sooner. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his requests for repair, and that they had dealt unreasonably with his subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had responded to the repairs within reasonable timescales, and that the options they had explored to treat the damp before having the cavity wall insulation replaced were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

With regards to complaints handling, whilst we found that the council's response to Mr C's stage one complaint had been late and they had not apologised for this, we found that the complaints handling was reasonable overall. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, but we did offer feedback to the council to stress that, if a complaints response is going to be outwith the timescale, then complainants should be notified where possible, and apologies for this should be provided.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's failure to empty her communal food waste bins and their failure to investigate her complaint.

Ms C told us that the communal bins were overflowing and that there was no bin liner in the bin. The problem continued to persist for a long time and Ms C tried to raise a formal complaint with the council. The council did not provide Ms C with a final response to her complaint.

We found that the council failed to empty the communal food waste bins on numerous occasions over a protracted length of time. We also found that the council failed to thoroughly investigate Ms C's complaint and failed to provide a satisfactory response for their failings. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

The council told us that they had been in touch with Ms C regularly to ensure that the service was now satisfactory. We asked for evidence of this and did not make any further recommendations regarding bin pick-ups. However, we did make recommendations regarding the handling of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Ms C to apologise for failing to investigate her complaint in line with their procedures. They should provide an explanation for their failings.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints handling staff should be reminded of the complaints handling procedure.

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 applied for, and was granted, planning permission to create a pavement crossing and a parking area within his garden. An additional permit was required for the excavations needed to lower the kerb. The council, having initially given Mr C verbal approval, did not issue a permit for the dropped kerb. Mr C complained to us that he was unreasonably given conflicting information in relation to the dropped kerb application. Mr C said he had already paid a contractor to lay paving slabs to make the parking area, which he was unable to use. Mr C also complained that the council took too long to respond to the complaint.

We found that the planning process and the process by which permission can be sought to carry out excavations to a road are governed by entirely separate legislation. The council's roads service failed to submit an objection to Mr C's planning application by the deadline date. Their objection related to the impact that Mr C's plans would have on other residents, in particular that it would reduce the number of available on-street parking places. It was not clear what impact, if any, this objection would have had on the planning committee decision.

The relevant roads legislation says the council may give permission to excavate the public road. In this case the council did not do so. We found that there was unreasonable confusion in respect of the permit application. Verbal permission should not have been given until any concerns about it had been properly considered by the council. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the council failed to issue responses to Mr C's complaints within the timescales set out in their policy. We took into account that the council had already offered sincere apologies for the lengthy delay. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The council told us they were in the process of carrying out a review of the planning process where a separate permit to carry out excavations in the road or footway are subsequently required. We asked the council to let us know the outcome of this review.

The council told us they had invited Mr C to make an insurance claim for reimbursement of the cost of work already carried out before the permit was refused. We asked the council to let us know the outcome of any claim Mr C submitted.

Recommendations

We recommended that the City of Edinburgh Council:

• advise us of the outcome of the review already underway in relation to the planning process in cases where Section 56 permits are subsequently required; and
• advise us of the outcome of the insurance claim.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of issues related to his son (Mr A)'s primary school. Mr A had special adjustments in place which Mr C felt had been disclosed inaccurately to other parents by teaching staff. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which his complaint about the matter was handled by council staff.

We found that the council had apologised to Mr C and his family for making inaccurate comments at a public meeting. We considered various possible factors raised by Mr C, but did not find evidence to clearly identify that any specific teacher or council officer had released confidential information about Mr A's special adjustments.

However, we considered that certain remarks made to Mr C were not appropriate; that a council officer should not have notified elected members not to respond to Mr C's correspondence; and that the handling of Mr C's complaint regarding this matter was not adequate. We upheld these aspects and recommended that the council apologise to Mr C and share our findings with relevant staff.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified and draw these findings to the attention of relevant staff.