Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about the home care package provided to her father. Although her complaint had been upheld by a Complaint Review Committee (CRC), Ms C was unhappy that several of the outcomes she had requested had been deemed to be outwith the CRC's remit. Ms C said they remained unanswered and that, as she had completed the social work complaints process, the council were refusing to discuss the matter further.

We found that CRCs have a broad remit and that there were no obvious grounds for ruling the outcomes Ms C requested as outwith the competence of the committee. We also found that one of the outcomes Ms C sought related to the provision of care to her father by an outside agency. Whilst the CRC was correct to state that they could not give directions to such an organisation, Ms C had been repeatedly promised by the council that this support would be progressed. It was unreasonable for the council not to have followed up on this, given that the CRC stated it could not reach a decision on it. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Explain, with reference to the appropriate guidance, why the CRC was unable to comment on some of the requested outcomes.
• Provide a clear explanation of why support from the external agency has not been progressed and give a timescale for delivery, if appropriate.

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

• Staff should ensure that care users and their families are provided with regular and accurate updates and advice on accessing care from third party providers.

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 about the council's handling of reports of anti-social behaviour that she had made about one of her neighbours. Mrs C felt that the council had failed to take sufficient steps to address her neighbours behaviour based on the information that was available to them.

On investigation, we found that the council had followed their policies and procedures and appropriately investigated Mrs C's reports. However, they were limited in the action they could take, as Mrs C's neighbour was at that time believed to be a private homeowner. During the investigations, it came to Mrs C's attention that her neighbour may be privately renting the property and she reported this to the council. She did not have contact details for her neighbour's landlord and there was no record that the property was privately rented under the landlord registration scheme. This meant that the only options available to the council were to ask Mrs C to continue reporting any further incidents to build a body of evidence and refer both parties to mediation. However, Mrs C chose not to make any reports and did not feel it was appropriate to take part in mediation, so the council closed the case.

As the council had correctly followed their policies and procedures, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about their failure to respond to her requests for repairs and concerns about dampness in her home. She also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to her garden fence. In response to Ms C's reports of damp, the council investigated the damp and carried out a number of repairs, however, the problem persisted. It was later discovered that the leak causing the damp was coming from a boiler pipe and this was repaired. The council assessed the repair to the fence as a low priority and only carried out small repairs until the full repair could be completed. Ms C was experiencing complaints from her neighbour as her dog was entering his garden through the fence. She believed that if the council had repaired the fence sooner she would not have had such a difficult relationship with her neighbour. Ms C was unsatisfied with the service she had received from the council, and brought her complaints to us.

Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C's request for repairs within the specified timescale, as per their policy. We found the council took the appropriate steps to investigate the source of the leak and damp, and repaired it without delay. Our investigation also found that the council assessed the repair to the fence as low priority and reminded Ms C of her responsibilities as a dog owner to prevent her dog from entering her neighbour's garden, which in our view was reasonable. We found no evidence that the council failed to carry out the repairs. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C, who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and cognitive/mental health difficulties, said that the council failed to take these matters into account when dealing with her housing transfer. She said that as a consequence, she felt pressured and suffered a breakdown. She said she felt that she was camping in her new home which was unsuitable. She further complained that she was held responsible for repairs to her former home, which was unreasonable.

In response to her complaint, the council said that they had acted in terms of Mrs C's request for single storey accommodation which was suitable for wheelchair access, but that in the 12 years of her being a council tenant prior to her visit to their offices, they had been unaware that she had any medical needs. It was at this time that Mrs C advised of her MS. However, she made no mention of other illnesses or problem for which she required support. Mrs C was subsequently allocated new, ground floor accommodation which she accepted, and shortly afterwards made an application for support mentioning her cognitive and memory problems. Two support staff were allocated to her and worked with her for over a year. They made over 60 visits and she was also helped with her rent. While Mrs C qualified for a removal grant, the council said that this was reduced to take into account repair costs required to put her former home into a lettable condition.

We made further enquiries of the council and found that after Mrs C first advised the council of her request to move, she attended their offices ten months later to confirm her request. The application form she completed indicated that she had MS but no further need for support. It was only after she accepted the offer made to her that Mrs C revealed the extent of her illnesses and her associated needs. Support officers were allocated to help her for an extended period of time and there was no evidence that she had been put under pressure to accept the offer made to her or to rush her move. We also found that on leaving her former home repairs had been outstanding, the costs of which had been deducted from her removal grant in accordance with existing council policy. Mrs C's complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained that his son was not receiving his entitlement of 600 hours a year of free nursery provision and that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the council had followed their policy correctly and that, although there was a small shortfall in the hours provided, they had made efforts to offer additional hours to make up the shortfall. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that there were some aspects of the complaints handling that could have been better, and we have drawn this to the council's attention. However, overall we considered that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C reported missed recycling bin collections to the council. He said that he reported these to the council on more than one occasion, and that his case was closed with no subsequent collection of the bins. He raised a formal complaint and the council responded by apologising and advising that the recycling bins had since emptied and that the service had returned to schedule. Mr C said the bins had not been collected. He said that after he raised his complaint, a council employee came to his house and spoke to his mother-in-law, however they did not leave any contact details so Mr C could not follow up the visit properly. He said he received no communication from the council about when the bins would be collected. Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to collect his recycling bins, and that they failed to adequately investigate and respond to his complaints.

We found that, while the council had identified issues with bin collection in Mr C's area, they had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that bins were emptied as per their schedule. We found that the council failed on a number of occasions to empty Mr C's recycling bins and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the council did not provide Mr C with reasons for their failings and they did not provide him with a formal response at stage one of his complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide Mr C with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure bins are collected on schedule.
• Write to Mr C with a thorough explanation for their failings and advise him of the steps they have taken to address his complaints.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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 about missed bin collections and their failure to lock the gates to the bin area at his home. The council said that they had spoken to operatives to remind them of the importance of locking the gate. The council also said that they replaced the locks and offered to provide Mr C with a key for the lock so that he could lock the gates should he find them open again, though Mr C said he did not receive this key. The council also provided him with direct contact details for a supervisor and manager.

After the council closed the complaint, the problems started to happen again. Mr C said he would have to chase away young people who were congregating in the area to drink and smoke. He complained that he could not get in touch with the supervisor and manager on their phones, that they were not responding to his emails and that the council had failed to inform him that these members of staff were on long-term leave.

Mr C tried to raise his complaint again after the gates were left unlocked again and the council responded advising that they were treating it as a service request and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained to us that the council's operatives unreasonably failed to close and lock the gate to the bin area. He also complained that the council failed to properly investigate and provide a reasonable response to his complaint.

We found some failings in the council's actions. It was evident that their investigation of the complaint and subsequent actions were not effective, as the problem continued to persist. We also found that the final response from the council to Mr C's complaint was inadequate. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Remind staff that the gate to the bin area at Mr C's home should be locked. Regular inspections should be carried out over a period of three months to ensure that this has taken place.
• Offer Mr C a key to allow him to lock the gate if he finds it open.
• Write to Mr C to apologise for failing to fully investigate his complaint and for failing to ensure that the gate was being locked.

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

• Wherever possible, phone messages and emails should be checked and out-of-office notifications and voicemail messages should changed advising when an employee is on leave.

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 reported missed collections of his recycling bins to the council on their web portal. He said that sometimes the problem was rectified within one week, however he felt that over time, reporting the missed collections did not seem to make a difference. Mr C raised a formal complaint with the council and the council responded by apologising and advising that all refuse had been uplifted from his property. They explained the problem was due to an operative error.

Mr C requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The council issued their final response and they explained that the depot had been in the process of reviewing their recycling routes and they anticipated that the issues would be resolved. Mr C contacted us and told us that the council had failed to collect the recycling bins at his property on at least seven occasions over the previous six months.

We found that the council had unreasonably failed to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and we found little evidence that the council took adequate steps to prevent this from happening. We also found that they had failed to properly investigate Mr C's complaints, as their responses to his complaints did not provide reasons for the missed bin collections. We upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide him with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure that bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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 reported missed bin collections to Glasgow City Council and subsequently raised the issue as a formal complaint. In their final response to Mr C's complaint, the council apologised and advised that all refuse was collected as requested and that their collection crews had been reminded to ensure all waste is uplifted. When Mr C brought his complaint to us, he told us that the bins had not been collected, contrary to the council’s letter. Mr C reported further missed collections and the council responded advising they would pass this onto the local depot and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to collect his bins and that they did not adequately investigate his complaints.

The council told us that they were experiencing a higher than normal level of requests and complaints at the time that Mr C raised his complaint. They also said they had to bring in additional workers who were unfamiliar with the routes. Despite the council investigating the complaint, we found that they continued to fail to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and failed to provide an explanation for this. We upheld both complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide a copy of the schedule for bins collections.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks and ensure the bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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 contractors working on land opposite his home created a new site entrance and works compound, despite him have received assurance from the council during the planning process that the existing site access would be preserved. The council advised this on the basis that the planning application did not show plans for a new entrance. Revised plans showing the new access arrangements were then submitted, subsequent to this complaint, and the council deemed the new access permitted development, not requiring planning permission.

We took independent advice from an planning adviser, who found that the new access and compound were classified as permitted development. We, therefore, concluded that the council did not act unreasonably in allowing the contractors to take this action, and we did not uphold this aspect of complaint.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the council responded to his concerns. As he had received an assurance from the council that the existing access arrangements would be preserved, we considered that he was justified in raising concerns when this changed. However, the council initially advised him that the planning process could not consider matters of construction, which the planning adviser disagreed with. The council then noted that they had no obligation under the planning process to provide Mr C with an individual response to his representations. They did not explain to him that the deviation from the submitted plans was permissible under permitted development rights, despite confirming this to the applicant shortly thereafter. We considered that the council failed in their duty to respond reasonably to valid concerns raised by a member of the public and 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 respond reasonably to his concerns.

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

• Ensure that enquiries, such as those submitted by Mr C, are passed promptly to relevant members of staff to fully consider and respond to accurately and in sufficient detail.

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.