Local Government

Summary

The funeral service for Mrs C's late mother (Mrs A) was delayed due to earlier services over-running. However, Mrs C said that Mrs A's family and the other people attending the funeral were not pro-actively made aware of the delay and that they were not advised that there was nowhere sheltered for them to sit whilst they waited after they vacated their cars. The council responded to Mrs C's complaints about these matters, but did not accept that they bore any responsibility for the delay or that any further action by them was required.

Mrs C brought her complaints to us. She complained that the council did not act reasonably to minimise the delay to the funeral, that they did not advise the family or the other people attending the funeral of the likelihood of a delay and that they did not respond reasonably to her complaints.

We found that the council could not have acted to minimise the delay once it emerged, so we did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, we agreed that several actions that the council had proposed in their response to us could reduce the likelihood of similar delays occurring in the future.

We found that the council did not act reasonably in communicating the circumstances to Mrs A's family or the other people attending the funeral, and so we upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

We further found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints. We found that they had not responded in line with their complaints procedure and that they had included contradictory information in their responses to Mrs C. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that they:
• did not act reasonably to advise her family or other mourners of the likelihood of a delay to Mrs A's funeral service
• did not respond to her complaints in line with their complaints procedure
• provided her with contradictory information within and between complaints responses.
• The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The council should:
• implement a system to ensure that, when a service is booked, an advisory note will be issued automatically to the funeral director or person making the booking regarding the length of service and what is expected of the funeral directors and celebrants with regard to timeous running of services and what the consequences may be if a service overruns
• give further practical and sensitive consideration to installing a light system in the service chapel, which will be visible to officiants but not mourners, and which will be operated by crematorium staff, to advise the officiant of the time left for the service to be completed.Advise an appropriate point of contact immediately when likely delays to funeral services emerge.
• Advise an appropriate point of contact immediately when likely delays to funeral services emerge.
• Additional seats should be installed outside of the crematorium. This should ensure that, if delays occur, those waiting do not have to stand whilst waiting for entry to the crematorium.
• Information should be provided to arriving mourners when there are delays to services beginning, or when sheltered waiting areas cannot be accessed at the crematorium.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should not contain contradictory information.

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 that the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team had taken an unreasonable length of time to fulfil a community care grant award for removal costs. Mr C said that, as a result, he incurred additional rent charges due to not being able to move into his new property and not receiving housing benefit for that new property until he was a resident there. He was also unhappy with delays in the council responding to his complaint and not being kept updated on the progress of his complaint.

We noted that the council processed his community care grant application well within the statutory timescales. The council uses a particular removal firm to fulfil awards and, after an award is made, informs the firm and leaves them and the applicant to liaise about the details of the removal. We found nothing in the Scottish Welfare Fund regulations or statutory guidance to suggest that this arrangement was not allowable. We also noted that the council contacted the removal firm for an update after a reasonable length of time. The firm informed the council that they had issues contacting the applicant but were able to make arrangements soon afterwards. Overall, we did not find any evidence of maladministration during the application process or in the council's method of fulfilment. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we did find that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to Mr C's complaint. We also found that they did not keep him updated and that they missed their own timescales that they laid out to him. Although there was an apology in their response to him, we did not consider that it was adequate or that their response fully explained the reasons for the delays. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and instructed the council to provide Mr C with a fuller explanation and an apology for the delays.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in complaints 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 and Mrs C bought a property and, upon moving in, discovered that many aspects of work and decoration in the house were either not completed or were of a poor standard. The council had issued a certificate of completion to the previous owner prior to the sale. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy as they spent a significant amount of money remedying the issues, and they said that they would not have bought the property had they known about these issues. They complained to us that the council failed to carry out appropriate inspections of the property prior to issuing a certificate of completion.

The council said that they had carried out an inspection and identified a number of actions which had to be taken before a certificate of completion could be provided for the previous owner. The owner advised the council when these actions had been taken, and the council carried out a further inspection. Following the second inspection, the council were satisfied that the works had been completed and a certificate of completion was issued.

We looked into this complaint and noted that it was not possible for us to establish the quality of the inspections or the work that had been carried out, as we had not been present at that time. After looking at the council's correspondence on this matter, we were satisfied that during their first inspection the council had listed issues which needed to be addressed, and that they had then followed up on this with a second inspection. They had gathered suitable evidence of the work having been completed from the tradesmen involved, and their actions appeared to us to have been reasonable, in line with their responsibilities under the Buildings (Scotland) Act 2003. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to complaints he had made to them. Mr C's home is next to an open area of council greenspace. A nearby school uses the greenspace for organised sports lessons and school team activities. These uses often result in balls arriving in Mr C's garden. He sought information from the council about their designation of the land and the council told him that it was designated as an amenity residential open space. Once Mr C received this information he complained to the council that, given this designation as an amenity residential open space, the use of the greenspace for sports activities was contrary to their parks rules. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response and raised his complaints with our office.

The council explained to us that the land in question is not designated as amenity residential open space and that it in fact forms part of a school estate and is part of the school's playground area. The council clarified that the land is designated as open space as it is also accessible by the general public when not in use by the school. During our investigation, we looked at the relevant council policies alongside the history of the land in question and the legal restrictions on its use. We concluded that the council's position was reasonable and that, consequently, no action was required by the council.

However, we were critical of the council as we considered that they had failed to investigate properly and had failed to respond accurately to Mr C's complaints. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to properly consider his 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

Ms C complained to the council about her neighbour's dog barking. Ms C believes her neighbour is keeping more dogs at their home than they have permission for. She told us she felt the council did not take her concerns seriously and they did not follow the procedure they advertise on their website. The council responded to her complaint and told her that the Safer Neighbourhood Team does not deal with dog barking. The council advised Ms C that she has the option to pursue private legal action.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council failed to take the appropriate action in line with their policies. The council were not able to take further action as they required independent evidence of the dog barking. We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation did find the information provided on the council's website was out of date. They informed us that they had already made some changes, but we found that there was still come incorrect information on the website and we asked that they send us evidence that they have corrected all of the conflicting information.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council following an upgrade to her heating system. She told us that after the work was carried out she noticed that her furniture, carpet and other personal items had been damaged and she submitted an insurance claim to the council. The council denied responsibility for causing damage to her property. She complained that the council unreasonably delayed in the handling of her insurance claim. The council offered to have her carpet re-laid as a goodwill gesture. Mrs C complained that the council delayed in repairing her carpet.

Regarding the insurance claim, our investigation found that the insurers requested a report from the council. However, the council employee that received the request was on sick leave and this was not picked up by another member of staff. We upheld this complaint and fed back to the council that they should consider reviewing their internal procedures to ensure cases are progressed while a member of staff is on leave. Our investigation also found that the council took 19 weeks to repair the carpet and we considered this to be unreasonable. We upheld this complaint and asked the council to provide Mrs C with a written apology.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mrs C to apologise for the unreasonable delay.

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 that the council had advised him to submit a building warrant application without first reviewing information he had previously submitted. He also complained that the council accepted his building warrant application before ensuring that all necessary information had been submitted. He was also concerned that, once the building warrant application had been submitted, it took the council a considerable time to issue his building warrant. He felt this delay was unreasonable.

The council responded to Mr C's complaint and explained that, because his plans included a drainage system which was untested in the UK, the council were unable to assess this aspect of the application at the pre-warrant stage and this was why Mr C was encouraged to submit his application for a building warrant. They acknowledged that following the submission of the application it took a considerable time for the building warrant to be issued. However, they explained that this was because they had to consult with other external agencies to seek opinions on the suitability of the drainage system. As soon as they obtained responses from these consultees, they approved the building warrant. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We considered the information provided by both parties. We noted that the drainage system proposed was new and untested, and we noted the considerable work undertaken by the council to seek approval for this system. We were satisfied that it was reasonable for the council to advise Mr C to submit his warrant application to allow the drainage issues to be considered in more detail and we noted the time taken for the council to obtain responses from consultees. We did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter and, as a result, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's handling of her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC).

Ms C was in receipt of direct payments for six hours per week of respite care in regards to the care of her daughter. Outside of these hours, Ms C was the sole carer for her daughter. Ms C was advised by her doctor to undergo surgery which would require several weeks of recuperation in hospital. Ms C requested that throughout this period the council increase her direct payments in order for her to pay her mother to look after her daughter during the surgery and recuperation time. The council refused this request, explaining that they did not consider the circumstances merited the payment of a family member. Ms C complained about this and took her complaints to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Ms C complained to us that there was an unreasonable delay in arranging the CRC, that there were inaccuracies in the council's submissions to the CRC, that the CRC unreasonably refused to consider certain evidence and that the minute of the CRC hearing unreasonably failed to mention this.

We found that there were unreasonable delays in the council arranging the CRC hearing and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had since offered an apology for these delays, and we therefore made no recommendations. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's complaints about the council's submission to the CRC, the CRC's consideration of evidence or the minute of the CRC hearing. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's involvement in statutory notice works that had been carried out to his property over four years. Mr C had several concerns, including the tendering process for the contractors, the communication with owners about the works, the management of the works, the decision to charge all owners in equal shares, and the billing and debt recovery process. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his complaints and that they had not answered all of his questions regarding an independent review that was carried out of the statutory notice projects.

Our investigation found that the council had appropriately and reasonably followed their policies and guidance with regard to the issues about which Mr C complained. However, we found that they had failed to respond in full to the first of Mr C's three formal complaints. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to respond in full to Mr C's first formal complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a council tenant, complained to the council about a number of issues regarding his new property. He complained that the council failed to ensure that his property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair and that they failed to follow their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained that he was provided with incorrect information about his entitlement to a decoration grant and about his utilities contract. He also said that he was provided with wrong information about anti-social behaviour complaints from a previous tenant, dog fouling and the council's handling of his complaint. Mr C was dissatisfied with the response from the council. He felt that the council did not properly investigate his complaints and that they failed to offer remedies to his upheld complaints. Mr C brought his complaints to us.

We found that the council failed to follow their housing allocation policy as they did not offer Mr C a 'settling in visit' after he moved into his new property and that they failed to ensure that Mr C had the opportunity to choose his own energy provider. We upheld these complaints and recommended the council provide Mr C with a written apology for these failings. We found that the council have already taken steps to ensure that tenants are better informed about their arrangements with their energy providers and we have asked the council to provide us with an update on their improvements. We found no failing in the council's actions regarding the standard of repair in Mr C's property and the decoration grant. We found that the council acted appropriately regarding Mr C's complaints about dog fouling and the information provided to him about the previous tenant's complaints of anti-social behaviour. We also found the council's handling of Mr C's complaint to be reasonable. We did not uphold these complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to follow their housing allocations policy by ensuring that a 'settling in visit' was arranged. Further apologise for failing to inform Mr C about their arrangements with the energy provider for the property. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: https://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.