Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son. They said that the council failed to provide him with an appropriate child’s plan and that they failed to provide him with an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) application form.

Mr and Mrs C said the child’s plan contained inaccurate and out of date information. However, Mr and Mrs C could not provide any evidence to support this complaint, such as why the plan given to their son was inappropriate or why the plan was inaccurate. We found that Mr and Mrs C had an opportunity to provide comments to their son's school about the child’s plan, and that they could inform the school of any factual inaccuracies they believed there to be. In relation to the EMA form, we found that their son's name was on a distribution list for EMA letters, and that the scheme was widely publicised in the school. We did not uphold Mr and Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s response to his complaint regarding a planning application in his neighbourhood. Mr C said he could not access a copy of the application to comment on it. He felt the council did not reasonably respond to his complaint about this, and were condescending and dismissive of his concerns.

We found that the council carried out a detailed investigation of Mr C’s complaint. Their response dealt with the key issues Mr C raised in his complaint, and it was detailed and factually accurate about the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The response explained what the council did in relation to the application, acknowledged there had been a problem for Mr C accessing the application at the council’s office, and outlined how the failings the council identified would be addressed. We did not find evidence that the council’s response was condescending or dismissive of Mr C's concerns, although we accepted this was Mr C’s perception of the response. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures before raising court proceedings to recover rent arrears. She also complained that they failed to follow policies and procedures in relation to recovery of council tax arrears. Miss C has a history of depression, stress and anxiety and has had spells when she has been well enough to work, as well as periods when she has been in receipt of benefits due to ill health. She pointed out that she had always notified the council of any change in her employment.

We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures in relation to recovery of rent arrears. It appeared that the council had correctly identified her as vulnerable and had taken steps to ensure that her arrears did not get out of hand, in line with their protocol. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to the council tax arrears, the council had instructed sheriff officers to recover council tax arrears dating back almost 20 years. Miss C accepted that she owed council tax, but she questioned how the council could pursue her for debts dating so far back. The council advised that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had not notified them when her direct deductions (deductions taken from benefit payments in order to repay debts) ceased, and that the debt had remained on hold until the council's debt recovery team recently carried out a review of all historical debts. The council accepted that there had been administrative failings in dealing with her historical debts. We considered that poor communication had led to an opportunity to share information being missed. Had there been better communication between departments, it may have been picked up sooner that she was no longer in receipt of benefits and was therefore not having direct deductions taken by DWP.

We found that although the officers involved in collecting Miss C's rent were aware of her depression and appeared to recognise her vulnerability, those pursuing her for council tax arrears failed to take her vulnerability into account. In terms of their policy, the council had discretion in relation to recovering the arrears, taking into account her vulnerability. We noted that they had certain write-off powers, but they satisfied us that these were not applicable in these particular circumstances. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for failing to note that she was no longer having direct deductions taken by DWP, leading to a build-up of council tax arrears dating back many years. Further apologise to Miss C for failing to identify her as vulnerable when recovering council tax arrears from her. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Review the way they treated Miss C in relation to their policies and her vulnerability, with a view to writing off some or all of the council tax arrears. They must explain their reasons for their decision in clear, jargon-free language.

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

• Communication between relevant departments, particularly with regard to vulnerable tenants, should be improved.

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

Miss C complained about the council regarding the allocation of a previous tenancy. She told us that she had repeatedly made clear to the council that she could only accept offers in one specific area very close to her family due to threats of violence from friends of her ex-partner. She said that the council insisted that she expand her areas of preference and this resulted in an offer in an area where she felt unsafe but that she felt forced to accept, as the council had told her she would not receive another offer if she refused. However, she had to leave this property after ongoing disputes with one of her neighbours, a friend of her ex-partner.

On investigation, we did not find any evidence that the council had applied pressure to Miss C to extend her area preferences. It was clear from the documentation, which Miss C had signed to confirm her agreement, that the property offered was in an area she had initially requested, before adding further areas. The council was also able to evidence that they had given due consideration to the suitability of the offer before approaching Miss C and do not appear to have held any information to suggest it was unsuitable. Finally, there was evidence that the council had provided clear information on Miss C's right of appeal, which confirmed that she would receive a further offer if her appeal was successful or be able to accept the original offer if it was not. However, Miss C chose not to appeal the offer. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

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.