Local Government

Summary

C complained to the council about various aspects of Social Work Services (SWS) involvement with their children. C complained that SWS failed to invite C to a 72-hour Looked After Child (a looked after child is a child under the care of the council) review. C further complained that at the review, SWS had not given appropriate consideration to the children's care planning, and had failed to correctly follow the Section 25 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in placing their children with a family member.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that SWS had made reasonable attempts to contact C to advise them of the review meeting. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We found that information presented at the meeting was lacking in respect of the children's own views, and SWS had failed to fully document their discussions with one of C's children. However, we considered that appropriate consideration had been given to care planning for the children. Therefore on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint but provided feedback to the council about the importance of ensuring accurate recording of social work activities, including seeking views, to inform care planning.

We also found that although C was in disagreement with the placement, and the views of the children themselves had been lacking, C's estranged partner had authority under section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to agree to the voluntary arrangement. We found SWS had followed best practice in ensuring C's estranged partner was appropriately supported in their decision-making regarding the children's care planning, and although there had been a delay in signing the section 25 paperwork, the placement had been valid. Therefore on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C further complained that SWS had unreasonably presented at their home during COVID-19 restrictions. We found that SWS had failed to follow their own COVID-19 guidance relating to home visits by not exploring the option of a remote meeting with C. We also found SWS had not provided C with a copy of the relevant guidance; had not made enquiries as to the status of C's health; and had not confirmed what PPE would be required to support the visit in advance. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint to the extent that SWS had failed to follow its own guidance, but not to the extent there had been a breach of public health guidance for which this office has no jurisdiction.

C also disagreed with the council's responses to their complaints and the manner in which these had been handled. We did not find any concerns with the manner in which the council had handled C's complaints, all of which were responded to in line with the Model Complaint Handling Procedure and good complaint handling principles.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. 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:

• Feedback the findings of this investigation to relevant staff for reflection and learning, and to inform future practice.

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 a financial assessment carried out in respect of their parent (A)'s, care costs. C complained that the council wrongly determined that in transferring the title to A's property to C three years previously, A had intentionally deprived themselves of capital to avoid paying residential care costs. C disagreed with the council’s decision to treat the value of the property as notional capital when calculating the costs that A owed.

There followed extensive communication between the council, C and C's solicitor. According to C, A had no expectation of going into care when they transferred the property, or at any point in the future. C said that A was a very active, intelligent and healthy individual who had every intention of remaining in the same home for the rest of their life. Nor, as far as C was aware, had A had any thoughts of disposing of some of their assets to avoid paying for care in the future.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to communicate with them reasonably in respect of the strategies used to prevent their child (A) being bullied at school by another pupil (B). Specifically, C complained about not being aware of the strategy in place for B at lunchtimes which resulted in A meeting B unaccompanied. C also complained about the effectiveness of the strategies used to protect A from B, noting their particular concern about both pupils being taught in the same location. However, in accordance with the SPSO Act 2002 we refrained from commenting on the quality of the strategies used. Rather, we investigated whether the council had acted in keeping with their policies and procedures.

We found that the council had implemented strategies in line with their policies and procedures, and that these were kept under review. We also found evidence of regular communication with C and A. Of note, the incident where A encountered B occurred outside of school grounds. As the strategies in place where only applicable within the school and its grounds, we did not find the communication with C on this matter to be unreasonable. We also concluded that the strategies implemented by the school were in keeping with the council's policies and procedures and that steps had been taken to mitigate against A encountering B.

Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C and B complained to the council about their child's (A) move to a residential placement under a section 25 arrangement (Children (Scotland) Act 1995). They said that the placement had been highly inappropriate and had not met A's complex needs. C and B further complained that they had felt pressurised into agreeing to the move and had been given inaccurate information by social workers about the resource.

In response the council said that the placement had been made on an emergency basis and in good faith that it would meet A's needs. They disagreed that it had been highly inappropriate. Although at the time they had been unaware of the provider's personal search practices, they agreed as a result of the complaint to request this information from all residential providers moving forward.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to find the best possible resource to meet A's complex needs within the limited timeframe available. Although we agreed that the council should have been made aware of their provider's personal search practices, we concluded that the council had acted reasonably in terms of their communications with C and B regarding the suitability of the resource and the information given to them and found no evidence to support that C and B had been pressurised into agreeing to the move. As such, we did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

C and B further complained that the council had failed to explain to them that it had been their intention to move A to secure accommodation and social workers had relied on inaccurate health reporting to inform this decision. C and B explained that they had been invited to a meeting with social workers but had been unaware it would be to discuss secure measures. As such, they had been denied the opportunity to have legal representation to challenge the council's decision and to prevent the move.

We were unable to reach a finding on what information had been given to C and B about the purpose of the meeting. While we acknowledged that having legal representation may have aided their understanding of the process, we found that this would not have had any bearing on the decision to move A to secure care. We concluded that the council had provided C and B with all the appropriate information leading to the decision, including the legal process and their rights of appeal. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C and B further complained that the council had failed to respond appropriately to their concerns that A may be self-harming during their placement.

While we found that overall the incidences of A's self-harm had been taken seriously, one particular incident had not been considered as thoroughly as it should have been and there had been a failure to report A's injuries to C and B at the time. Therefore, on balance, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and B, and to A, for failing to give appropriate consideration to an incident where A had self-harmed. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• In situations where a young person is at risk of self-harm, there should be clarity in the council's contract with external care providers about the reporting of such incidents to the family/carers and to the council themselves.

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's complaints related to a council-run football pitch next to their home. C reported that the noise levels from the pitch, as well as foul language by the users of the pitch were reaching unreasonable levels, particularly later in the evening before the pitch closed at 10pm, and that this was keeping their young child awake. They explained that they had provided recordings to the council to evidence this, but that the council had refused to take action to address it.

We found that the council had, in response to C's concerns, amended their letting terms and conditions to ensure that there were clear rules prohibiting unreasonable noise levels and language by renters of the pitch. However, the only steps that the council had taken to address this with users, was to send a general email about unreasonable noise to all renters of pitches they ran, warning that leases may be removed if terms and conditions were breached by unreasonable behaviour.

Given that C had been providing clear reports and recordings of specific times and behaviours, we considered it was unreasonable for the council not to take any steps to raise these issues with the specific users responsible. We also considered that the council had failed to provide sufficient explanations to C of the kind of evidence that they would consider and how they would investigate their concerns.

For these reasons, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Explain to C what they need to do to report and evidence unreasonable use of the pitches going forward.

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

• When receiving evidence of misuse of council facilities, the council should take appropriate action to ensure the users responsible abide by the letting terms and conditions.

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 social care provided by the council to their elderly parent and how the council had communicated with them in relation to this.

The complaint was taken to investigation on the basis of the information provided by the council to our initial enquiries and considered by a social work adviser. However, in response to our notification of investigation, the council provided evidence of further information explaining the reasons for the poor communication with C and further details of measures taken to address the failings in this case, which they fully accepted.

We took further advice from our social work adviser, who confirmed the measures taken by the council were reasonable in the circumstances. On this basis, it was agreed with C that we would request the council to issue a further apology to C, which they provided. However, C advised that they did not wish to accept the apology once it had been received. On review of the apology, it appeared to be reasonable and in accordance with the SPSO guidance on apologies. On this basis, the investigation of C's complaint was discontinued as there was nothing further we could achieve.

Summary

C is an advocate for A who is a parent of child B. C complained to the Comhairle about the management of B's schooling, in particular the management of various periods of exclusion due to B's behaviours. C complained that there were occasions where B was not permitted to participate fully in their education alongside their peers and that these should have been considered as formal exclusions. The Comhairle said that there were only two periods of time that B was formally excluded and that on other occasions B was cared for in the Extended Learning Resource (ELR) unit.

In response to our investigation, the Comhairle provided evidence of B's attendance and their Included, Engaged and Involved Guideline (2013) which is the policy for managing periods of exclusion. The evidence confirmed that there were occasions B was not educated alongside their classmates but did receive specialist provision elsewhere and in accordance with the policy, these periods were not regarded as formal exclusions. We also found that during the periods where B was formally excluded, the school followed the guidelines correctly. However, there were occasions where A was requested to take B home from school early and this was contrary to the policy. The Comhairle acknowledged this and offered to formally apologise to A. We upheld the complaint on this basis.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for failing to follow their policy when B was sent home early from school. 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 sought advice from the council regarding development that they were planning at their home. C received a response, with input from the building standards service, that the council would not be asking for a building warrant in relation to the development.

A few years later the building standards service contacted C to advise that complaints about the use of their property had been received and the council considered a building warrant was required.

C felt that, before being given advice some years previously, they had communicated the information about the use of the development the council now advised were the reasons a building warrant was required. C complained to the council about this and the actions of the building standards service.

The council responded that the advice provided had been correct at the time of issue and based on the current regulations and guidance at that time. The council said that they considered the use of C's property had changed and, therefore, the basis upon which the advice had been given had also changed. C was unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us.

We found that the passage of time meant that it was not possible to determine whether the advice received from the buildings standards service had been reasonable as it was not clear what information the service were in possession of. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint but provided feedback to the council to reduce the likelihood of any confusion over the response to requests for advice in future.

We found that the recent actions of the building standards department had been reasonable given the terms of relevant guidance and standards, and did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

We found that the council's response to C's complaint had inaccurately suggested that C had not made the council aware of the intention to invite the public into the proposed development. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that the response to C's complaint inaccurately suggested that C had not made the council aware of the intention to invite the public into the proposed development. 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's responses to complaints do not contain inaccurate suggestions.

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 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.