Local Government

Summary

C became kinship carers of A and B. C complained that the council had decided that they were not entitled to a kinship care allowance relevant to a period of nearly two years (in respect of both A and B). C said that they approached the council about kinship support and an allowance but this was not responded to appropriately at the time (including a lack of record-keeping by the council). C was of the view that if they had been given appropriate information in at the beginning, they and A and B would have been awarded what they were entitled to.

We considered the relevant legislation and guidance and took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that C was not provided with information and advice about eligibility for a kinship care allowance and Kinship Care Orders. We also found that there was an unreasonable failure to maintain case records regarding C and A and B's involvement with social work.

We upheld C's complaint and made recommendations to the council, which, as far as possible, aim to put C back in the position that they would have been in had the failings not occurred.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not providing them with information and advice about eligibility for a kinship care allowance and Kinship Care Orders. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Complete an assessment, in line with relevant guidance, in respect of C's care of A and B. As far as possible, consideration should be given to the circumstances of the household when the assessments would have originally taken place (not just the current circumstances). If, following the assessments, the council is satisfied of A's and B's eligibility, consideration should be given to making a backdated ex gratia payment equivalent to the amount of kinship care allowance that C would have received had they been appropriately informed about the need to obtain a kinship care order.

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

• Information and advice should be provided to kinship carers about eligibility for a kinship care allowance and Kinship Care Orders in accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance.
• Written case records should be appropriately maintained and retained.

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

C complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to reports of anti-social behaviour that C had made against their neighbours. C felt that the council had not taken their concerns seriously and that they had been passed around between staff members with no one taking a lead role or responsibility for handling their concerns.

We found that the councils procedures and processes for investigating anti-social behaviour were detailed, robust and good practice approaches to handling reports of anti-social behaviour. However, the council failed to provide evidence that these processes had been considered or followed in their handling of C's reports, and made no reference to the specifics of those procedures in their responses to C's complaints or our investigation.

As such, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to reasonably investigate and respond to their reports of anti-social behaviour. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Carry out an interview with C under Stage 1 of their process, to ascertain what problems, if any, they are still experiencing, and action those through the remaining stages of the anti-social behaviour procedures, as appropriate.

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

• The council should follow their anti-social behaviour procedures when handling all reports of anti-social behaviour, and clear records should be kept of all steps taken.

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

C is the owner of a 'four-in-a-block' flat and the other three properties in the block are owned by the council. The council undertook a programme of external works in C's local area to upgrade the properties that they owned. The council told C that the works were required and C's share of the cost would be £14,127.44.

C felt that the amount they were expected to pay was too high. C told the council that they did not consent to the works proceeding. C asked for the option of their property being excluded from the works as C felt other homeowners had been given this option.

The council said that they carried out a consultation and that C had the opportunity to vote against the works, provide their own quotes, and appeal the decision to proceed. The council gave C extra time to appeal against their decision. No appeal was submitted to the courts and the council proceeded with the works.

C complained that, despite their objections, the works went ahead, that the council did not explain what they meant when they mentioned C's title deeds, that the council appeared to have an inconsistent approach, and that they communicated unreasonably with C.

We found that the council took reasonable action in line with the title deeds and their own procedures. Whilst it appeared some other properties in the area had not had works completed, we did not find evidence to suggest that the council had an inconsistent approach. The way in which the council made the decision to proceed with works was reasonable.

We also found that, whilst there were two occasions where the council failed to respond to C and one where the response was sent to a councillor, in general, the council communicated reasonably. They explained the process, provided additional advice on where to find financial support, directed C to seek legal advice, and extended the timescale for C to submit an appeal to the court if they wished. On balance, we found that the council's communication with C was reasonable.

As such, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained to the council about the school their child (A) attends. A was transitioning from early years to primary school. As A had additional needs, a transition plan was required. C complained to the council that the school failed to put in place the appropriate transition arrangements in line with their obligations under the Additional Support for Learning (ASL) (Scotland) Act 2004; that they did not communicate appropriately with them about A's support and education and that they did not carry out an appropriate investigation of their complaint about the handling of a staged intervention meeting.

We found that the council failed to meet the required timescales when putting in place the appropriate transition arrangements for A and as such we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We noted that there was reasonable mechanisms in place to keep C updated about A on a daily basis. While the council recognised that there were times that C's email correspondence was not responded to, we are satisfied with their overall communication with C and as such, we did not uphold the complaint. We also noted that the council carried out an appropriate investigation of C's complaint about the school's handling of a staged intervention meeting. The council consulted with all attendees and have demonstrated that they have reflected appropriately on the school's handling of the meeting. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The council should have appropriate measures in place to ensure that statutory timescales for putting in place an appropriate transition are met.

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

C, parent of A, complained to the council that during A's time at school the council had failed to address bullying and racist incidents. The complaint raised a number of incidents which C considered had not been investigated or responded to appropriately, and that as a result A was unsafe and their education had been impacted.

C also complained that the council failed to offer any assistance as promised, from an educational psychologist, which was required to help A in response to the racist bullying, including the aftermath of an assault which occurred in school.

The council, in their response to the complaint, said that records demonstrated actions taken by staff to address bullying and racist incidents reported to them were timely, appropriate and in line with council policy. The educational psychologist met with C and a commitment was given that they would meet A in person. Two appointments were arranged but A was absent for one, and for the second A was in hospital. The council acknowledged follow-up was not offered, and identified a breakdown in communication in rearranging the meeting.

We found that the school in question had investigated and taken action with respect to incidents of bullying and racist bullying. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We found that there was evidence that the council had appropriately considered support for A involving an educational psychologist, however following an initial meeting the council failed to appropriately communicate subsequent appointments and failed to re-arrange the appointment for A to meet an educational psychologist. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

In accordance with our powers to consider complaints handling, we found that the council's response to C's complaint in relation to bullying should have been more detailed and specific and was therefore unreasonable. We made recommendations to the council in this regard.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to provide a full and detailed response to all issues of complaint, specifically those relating to incidents of bullying and racial harassment. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Relevant staff should be aware of the requirements of the complaints handling procedures, particularly with respect to identifying and responding to relevant issues in a complaint.

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

C complained about the planning procedure followed by the council for a planning application to build a dwelling house and garage on the site of a post office in C's street. C raised a number of concerns, including that the garage drawings were not published on the council's planning portal for comment, that the correct garage floor area was not shown on the block plan and that the planning officer approved a garage of 51 square metres and then allowed a garage to be built which was clearly larger than this. We took independent advice on the complaint from a planning adviser.

The council acknowledged to C and this office that they failed to upload all relevant information on this planning application to their planning portal, including the detailed garage drawings. However, they failed to apologise to C for this failing and explain what action they had taken to prevent this type of failing from happening again. We noted that the system upgrade the council advised they were now installing to prevent errors in manual uploading was reasonable and we asked the council for evidence of the completed implementation and confirmation of its scope.

We noted that the block plan did not show the garage floor area and it was not specifically required to do so. However, they said that the garage floor area in the block plan appeared to be considerably smaller than the garage shown in the approved garage plans and elevations and it would have been good practice for the council to have ensured that all plans were consistent.

We noted that although the planning report referred to the garage as being 51 square metres, the stamped plans were what was ultimately approved and what an applicant could then implement and they showed the garage as being 77.8 square metres. The council have said that the reference to a 51 square metre garage was based on a miscalculation by the planning officer and remedial action had been taken to address this.

We were concerned that the planning report did not contain any reference to the assessment of the garage or any evidence that the potential impacts of the garage were considered in the determination of the application. We were critical of the council in this regard.

We were also concerned that, despite being advised by the council that they did not re-notify neighbours about the change in the dimensions of the garage because this was to a reduced footprint with a lower impact, we did not see any evidence that the original proposal was for a garage which was larger than the one approved by the council. As such, it was not possible to determine that re-notification of the neighbours was not required. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to upload all relevant information on the planning application to their planning portal, providing incorrect/misleading information on the size of the garage in the planning report, failing to include information on the assessment of the garage and its potential impact in the planning report, and, in their complaint response, unreasonably failing to explain to C why the planning report stated that the garage was 51 square metres, when at no time was a garage of that size approved. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• For planning reports for applications to appropriately address all aspects of a development.
• For site visits on planning applications to be recorded and include information such as the date of the visit, who attended, what was considered and any photographs taken.
• Plans for development should be consistent, in that the dimensions of buildings should be the same on all stamped approved plans.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council's responses to complaints should address all issues raised, as required by the Model 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

C complained about the council's handling of their complaints about their child (A) being bullied at their school by another child. They advised that the bullying had persisted for a number of years and complained of the school repeatedly using the same strategies with little effect or of them being stopped prematurely. They also complained that the council had failed to keep proper records of the incidents of bullying. C said that this lack of documentation had contributed to the school continually using the same anti-bulling strategies despite them not working.

C made two formal complaints to the council, both of which were partially upheld by the council and which identified failings and described actions for improvement.

We found that the council had implemented anti-bullying strategies following C's first complaint which had had a positive impact on behaviour, however they did not keep this under review in line with their policies and the bullying recommenced during a period when no measures were in place. This led to C making a further complaint. Following C's second complaint, we found that the council were now monitoring the behaviour and adhering to their anti-bullying policies. However, as C had been required to make a second formal complaint to achieve this outcome, we upheld this complaint.

In reference to the council's record-keeping of the reported incidents of bullying, we found that the council had improved their documentation since C's first complaint about this and incidents of bullying were now being recorded on the appropriate systems. As this was no longer a problem at the time of C's second complaint, we did not uphold this complaint.

As C had advised of being unaware of the stage at which their complaints were being handled, we provided feedback to the council to ensure that the complaint handling procedure was clearly explained to complainants.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council have been asked to apologise to C for failing to manage reports of bullying in line with their policies and procedures. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

C complained that the council failed to properly administer a grants administration process. C also complained that the council failed to handle their complaint properly, by appointing an individual who was directly involved in the complaint as the complaints officer.

The council said that C had previously been made a grant offer, which had been extended. They had then been offered a further extension, but C had not felt able to accept this. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly. The decision on C's grant had been made by an officer operating under delegated authority. This was in line with the terms of reference for the project board which administered the grants. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, the council said that they were entitled to appoint the investigating officer for C's complaint. In their view, the officer appointed had the greatest knowledge of the issues under investigation. We found that the council's explanation that the investigating officer was not named in C's complaint was irrelevant. The investigating officer was directly involved in the decision C was complaining about. C had raised this with the council, but it had not been addressed. We found that C's complaint had been handled unreasonably and upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for appointing an investigating officer with a conflict of interest. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to C for failing to respond appropriately to their concerns about the appointment of the investigating officer. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The council ensure that investigating officers do not have a conflict of interest over the complaint they are investigating.
• The council should ensure that when considering concerns about an investigating officer, they do so in line with the appropriate complaints handling 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

C complained on behalf of their late grandparent (A).

A was admitted to hospital. The next month they were moved to an NHS continuing care bed in a care home. Shortly after, A's child and Power of Attorney (POA) received a call from a social worker to inform them that A would be transferred to a different care home the next day. C spoke to the social worker the same day and this was confirmed. The move was stated to have been due to the need to free up beds in light of the developing pandemic. C asserted that both they and A's POA were told that A would be moved to another NHS bed. Subsequently, A's family received a fee note from the new care home. C complained that A's move had been unreasonable and that A's family had not been informed of any potential costs.

The council said that A's move was reasonable in light of a clear directive from the Scottish Government to free hospital beds. They said that the social worker had informed A's family that the move would be to a private nursing home.

C complained to us. We took initial independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the council's response regarding the move appeared reasonable, but that its response regarding fees was unreasonable. The adviser highlighted the information they would expect a family to be given prior to such a move.

We opened an investigation into the case and notified the council of this decision. In response, the council changed their position.

While it noted the circumstances of the developing pandemic, the council accepted that its communication with A's family had been inadequate. They proposed resolving the complaint by acknowledging their failure and by paying the care home fees.

C accepted this resolution. As it was considered that there was no systemic learning to be found (due to specific nature of the failure) the complaint was closed on this basis.

Summary

C complained about the council after being issued with a number of warnings against their tenancy for antisocial behaviour. C said that the reports of antisocial behaviour were false accusations made by a number of neighbours motivated by discrimination. They told us that the council had unreasonably accepted corroboration between the neighbours, who were friends, but would not accept corroboration from C's parents for their counter allegations.

On investigation, we found that the council had a reasonable evidence base to support their decisions. We considered that the council could show that they had considered all of the evidence and circumstances in reaching the decisions to issue warnings and that these were therefore decisions that were reasonably within their discretion to make.

As such, we did not uphold the complaint.