Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council administered statutory notice works to a property he owned. The notice served by the council required work to be carried out to remedy various issues involving the roof and masonry. As these works were not carried out by residents, the council sent a further notice advising that they would arrange for the works to be carried out and informing residents of their right to appeal this decision. Following this, the council proceeded to appoint a contractor through competitive open tender. Once works commenced, further defects were identified and additional notices were served on residents in respect of these. Consequently, the cost of the project increased significantly compared to what was initially estimated.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to keep appropriate records of the tendering process and had failed to follow the correct tendering process for the works. We found evidence that the council held copies of four completed tender documents; a copy of a completed tender report, which detailed the basis for the council accepting the tender from one of the contractors; and a signed copy of the contractor's endorsement of the tender. We noted that the project had been tendered competitively and that the cheapest tender had been chosen by the council. We did not find evidence that the tendering process used by the council was inappropriate, or that the council did not hold appropriate records in relation to this. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also raised concern that the council was unable to produce a formal final account and a full breakdown of the costs. Mr C also felt that some of the costs had not been appropriately verified as reasonable. We were critical that the council failed to ensure that they obtained a signed and itemised final account, and we noted that this was a requirement of the council's procedures. In light of this, we upheld this complaint. However, we found that the council had instructed a financial services firm to carry out an independent review of the project. This review concluded that the costs of the project were reasonable and recoverable. We assessed the evidence considered within the review and we were unable to conclude that the process of verification carried out was not reasonable.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a roof guarantee within a reasonable time. We found evidence of a significant delay in the council requesting a guarantee from the contractor following the completion of the project. Although we upheld this complaint, we noted that a guarantee was belatedly provided to the owners, and we were satisfied that this met the requirements of the council's procedures.

The council informed us that the department that had administered the statutory notice project was no longer operational and had been replaced by a new service with a customer service approach. In view of this, we were satisfied that no recommendations for learning were required in this case. However, we asked the council to apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings we had identified.

In the course of our investigation, we found evidence that some of Mr C's complaints had not been appropriately acknowledged and logged as complaints. We were also critical that the council had advised that no complaints had been received from Mr C's wife when the council had in fact issued a complaint response to her. In light of these findings we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mr C with a written apology for the shortcomings identified in this investigation; and
• feed back our findings regarding the handling of this complaint to relevant staff.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the allocation of costs regarding two statutory notices served on her property. Mrs C said that the allocation of costs between the two notices was arbitrary and that the costs should be reduced.

Before Mrs C complained to us, the council had instructed a consultant to carry out an investigation of complaints regarding statutory notices, which included complaints about the allocation of costs. This investigation recommended that the costs of one of the statutory notices should be reduced to zero as the notice had been incorrectly served. Mrs C agreed with this, but said that some of the costs of the statutory notice that was not reduced to zero should have been apportioned to the other notice.

We found that the investigation carried out by the independent consultant had reasonably considered the complaints about the allocation of costs between statutory notices. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of an incident involving his daughter (Miss A) and another pupil, in which Miss A ended up with facial and eye injuries and was off school for a week. Mr C did not accept that what happened was an unintentional clash of heads and he was dissatisfied with the help and support his daughter was offered at school following the incident.

We found that the school took reasonable steps to find out what happened, by speaking to the staff involved, the other pupil, and to Mr C. It was clear that there were differing accounts of what had happened. The school did not formally interview Miss A, although they did put on record what she told a teacher immediately after the incident. By the time Miss A returned to school the matter had been referred to the police by Mr C and Miss A had been interviewed by them.

We found that the council took a careful approach after the matter was reported to the police and did not do anything which might jeopardise any ongoing investigation. The evidence showed that both Mr C and the council placed importance on the investigation by the police. There was evidence that Mr C told the council on more than one occasion that a decision or conclusion had been reached by the police. We found no evidence that such a decision or conclusion was ever conveyed to the council.

Mr C felt that the council did not take Miss A's account of the events into consideration fully. We found that the evidence did not show that Miss A's account was not believed, or that the other pupil's account was considered more reliable, but rather that a definitive account of events could not be substantiated because there were no witnesses.

Mr C was dissatisfied that the council failed to take into account medical evidence of Miss A's injury. We found that the council's position, which was that such evidence should be evaluated by the police, was not unreasonable. Council officers would not have been in a position to evaluate the significance of the medical evidence. In the circumstances we decided the kind of basic investigation carried out by the council, in terms of recording the accounts of the children, was the kind of investigation we would expect.

We did not find evidence that requests for help or support for Miss A on her return to school had been ignored or denied. We found that there were support measures in place to allow Miss A to discreetly alert the teacher if feeling anxious, or to exit the class if feeling threatened. Measures were also put in place for Miss A and the other pupil to be kept apart, both in the class and out of it. A process for Miss A to check in with a trusted teacher was arranged, and school staff were asked to be vigilant. There is evidence that Miss A was referred to the school nursing service after Mr C met with the council. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of the decision to change her son (child A)'s school class for the following academic year. Child A had been informed of his class before the school summer holidays. However, very shortly before the beginning of the school term, Mrs C was told that he would not be going into the class of which he had been previously informed.

Mrs C was unhappy with the way the council handled this decision. Specifically, she felt that they had failed to take into account the provisions of the Scottish Government's 'Getting it Right for Every Child' (GIRFEC) approach by not consulting with her, her husband or child A about the decision and that they had failed to provide her with details of the information on which the council's decision had been based.

Mrs C also felt that the council had failed to give a reasonable explanation for their decision, delayed unreasonably in informing her and child A about the decision, and failed to consider the effect the decision would have on child A.

As part of our investigation, we received further information from the council about the complaint. Although we could not provide Mrs C with the confidential information received which had led to the council's decision, we were satisfied that the council's explanation for reaching their decision was reasonable and was in line with their policy on the selection of pupils for classes.

We also considered the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to children, young people and their families understanding what is happening and having their wishes heard and understood. In this case, child A and his family were not adequately informed about what was happening and why, or given the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached. We thought that, had the council contacted child A and his family, this would have also prepared them for the possibility that child A may have to change classes, rather than this decision coming without warning so close to the beginning of term.

We also had concerns that, contrary to the joint working approach set out by GIRFEC, it did not appear that the school was involved in the discussions about the decision, which took place over the summer holiday period. We also concluded that there was an unreasonable delay between the decision being made and this being communicated to child A.

Given that the council did not keep Mrs C's family properly informed and involved and that there was an unreasonable delay in informing them of the decision, we considered that the council did not take appropriate action to limit the upset caused to child A.

Although it did not form part of Mrs C's complaint to us, we identified concerns with record-keeping at the school and the council. The council acknowledged that there was very little physical evidence in relation to this complaint. Our view was that it would be good practice for the school and council to keep a record of discussions where important matters which could have an impact on a child's well-being are discussed. In this case, it was difficult to establish exactly what had happened as there was no record of the relevant discussions within the school and the council.

In light of the above, we upheld Mrs C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• share the findings of this investigation with staff within the education department and remind them of the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to: children, young people and their families being kept informed about what is happening and why, and being listened to and having their wishes heard and understood; and the importance of joint working when making decisions which will impact on a child’s well-being;
• apologise to child A and his family for failing to keep them informed about what was happening and why and not giving them the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached, and for the delay in informing them of the decision;
• remind staff involved in this complaint (including the school) of the importance of recording discussions (including with parents, carers, children, young people and other staff) where important matters which could have an impact on a child’s well-being are discussed; and
• reflect more broadly on the failings identified in this investigation and take any necessary improvement action to prevent a similar situation occurring again, and inform us of any improvements.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to refer a decision on a planning application to the planning committee, and that the council's handling of his complaint about this matter had been unreasonable because it was responded to by the officers who had handled the application.

Mr C believed the application should have been referred to the planning committee because a previous application, which he considered was similar, had been determined by the planning committee. The council advised that the previous application had been for the removal of a planning condition for a group of buildings, while the application Mr C complained about had been for a change of use of some of that group of buildings, and that they considered that the applications were significantly different. We took independent advice from a planning adviser who reached the same conclusion, and also noted that documents submitted with the later application specifically pointed out that there were differences between it and the earlier application. We accepted the adviser's view and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had appropriately investigated the complaint and there had been no undue influence by the staff who had originally handled the applications. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a housing officer unreasonably approached him in the street and accused him of causing nuisance. Mr C said he had previously told the council about a health issue, and had asked them to notify him in advance of any visit.

We found that Mr C had told the council about a disability, and had asked them to alert him in advance of any visit. The council said the officer who approached Mr C did not know who he was when they approached Mr C. We could not prove by means of the evidence available exactly what the officer who approached Mr C knew about the situation. We found that the officer was entitled to ask the kind of questions they put to Mr C. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted the officer could have been better informed and prepared in advance of the visit.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to follow the correct procedures when investigating the matter. We found that the council had in the main done what would be expected in similar situations. However, the council's tenancy management procedures were not followed, as no case closure letter had been sent. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the existing tenancy management procedures and/or remind staff of their obligations under those procedures.

Summary

Miss C was unhappy with the condition of a property she moved into. She said the property was not clean and smelled of urine, with stains on the floors and doorways. Miss C said that it took the council too long to carry out repairs that were needed, and that the council did not respond to all the issues she raised in her complaint.

The council's letting standard is that properties should be clean and free of offensive smells. It was clear from the void inspection report that the property was in a poor state of cleanliness. However, we found evidence that some cleaning was carried out, as the property was being cleaned when Miss C viewed it. We took into account that Miss C viewed the property and that neither Miss C, nor the council officer present at the viewing, noticed or reported any offensive smell at this time. Overall the evidence showed that the council had taken the kind of steps we would expect to check that the property was in a lettable condition by arranging for it to be cleaned and repaired. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

We found that when Miss C reported emergency repairs they were dealt with in a timely way, according to the council's policy. We found a flea infestation was treated within a reasonable timescale. Although the council's policy was not prescriptive in terms of how long repairs categorised as non-emergency should take, we found that the time taken to complete joinery works to replace sections of stained flooring was not excessive. The council acknowledged the disruption to Miss C in responding to her complaint.

We found it took too long for the council to repair a path and steps and to replace a handrail. We asked the council to check whether this repair should have been carried out according to the right to repair legislation. There was also evidence that other small non-emergency repairs logged following an inspection visit were not progressed with reasonable efficiency and that relatively straightforward issues were not resolved within a reasonable timescale.

Miss C's letter of complaint raised a number of different issues linked to her move to the property. The council's response addressed the main issues raised within the relevant timescale. Miss C's complaint was partially upheld by the council. They said they were sorry that the condition of the property was not as Miss C had expected, and they acknowledged that her move had been more stressful than anticipated. The council apologised for the inconvenience and upheaval caused.

Overall we considered the content of the council's response to Miss C's complaint to be reasonable. However we noted that the council's response did not address all of the issues Miss C raised. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the evidence in respect of the repair to the stairs, path and handrail and consider whether this repair should have been dealt with under the right to repair rules. The council should assess, if appropriate, whether any payment is due to Miss C under the right to repair rules. The council should also write to Miss C to confirm the outcome of the review, and send a copy to us.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her concerns about alleged bullying at her son's school. Mrs C raised concerns that the council failed to formally record her concerns about bullying, failed to investigate these concerns, and failed to handle her complaint appropriately.

The council advised that the school did not consider the behaviour complained about to be bullying, so it had not been recorded as such. They considered that this had been appropriately investigated. The council acknowledged there had been some confusion in the complaints process surrounding the appropriate procedure.

After reviewing the council's complaints file and reviewing the relevant policies, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that there had been failures in recording the alleged bullying. In particular, the council's guidance suggested alleged incidents of bullying needed to be recorded on the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form as such, not only cases where bullying was found to occur.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns about investigating bullying, we found that there was evidence that the school had investigated the incidents and considered that they did not amount to bullying. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Regarding the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we noted there were a number of issues, including confusion regarding the appropriate policy and delays in responding. Therefore, we considered the council had not adhered to their complaints handling policy, and we found the handling of the complaint to have been unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings in complaints handling identified in this investigation;
• feed back to relevant staff the failings identified in the handling of Mrs C's complaint;
• apologise for the failings in recording alleged bullying incidents identified in this investigation;
• take steps to ensure the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form is appropriately completed; and
• provide us with evidence that the council's policy guidance has been reflected in the school's anti-bullying policy.

Summary

Mr C had a number of concerns about the council's administration in relation to council tax. Mr C lets a property within the council's area, and when the tenants of his property changed, he provided information to the council about the change by email. The council sent Mr C a paper form by post and requested that he complete this so that the change in liability could be processed. Mr C complained that the council asked him to provide information in this form that he had already provided by email. We found that the information Mr C had provided by email would not have been sufficient for the council to correctly establish liability for the new tenants. We were therefore not critical that the council asked Mr C to complete a change in tenant notification form.

Mr C complained that the council had requested more information than was necessary to establish that a tenancy existed, and consequently that a tenant was the liable person. We found that the council had a policy to request a copy of the tenancy agreement as well as a copy of a special notice (an AT5 notice) that would make a tenancy a short assured tenancy. The council advised us that, although an AT5 was not required in terms of council tax legislation, they requested this document for a number of other reasons, including to promote best practice in the private rented sector. We were critical that the council had held Mr C to be the liable person for council tax when they held enough information to determine that this was not the case. We were also critical that the council's complaint response to Mr C was inconsistent with the council's guidance on tenancies and AT5 notices. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had asked him to provide an AT5 notice to tenants retrospectively. We found that the council had acknowledged that a customer service representative had given improper advice regarding when an AT5 could be provided and had apologised to Mr C for this. The council also said that refresher training had been arranged and that staff had been reminded of the guidance, which correctly states that an AT5 notice cannot be provided retrospectively. We upheld this complaint, but we made no further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the policy to request AT5 notices in relation to council tax liability taking into account the findings of this investigation;
• take steps to ensure that relevant officers are familiar with the council's published guidance on Short Assured Tenancies and AT5 notices; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified within this investigation.

Summary

Mr C, a lawyer, complained to us on behalf of his client (Miss A). Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling bins from Miss A's address as scheduled, and about the council's handling of Miss A's complaint.

The council acknowledged there had been operational failures leading to missed collections from Miss A's address. For example, collection crews failed to record missed uplifts. This resulted in Miss A having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions. The council's response to Miss A's complaint said they would ensure collections were not missed.

However, as Miss A had to report further missed collections to the council and complain to us, it was clear the council's response to her complaint failed to ensure recycling collections would take place. This called into question the quality of the council's investigation into Miss A's complaint and the remedy put in place as a result of her complaint.

We upheld Mr C's complaints and made recommendations. However, the council has taken action to address the failings in complaints handling and therefore we have made no recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Miss A for missed recycling collections and explain to Miss A why collections were missed and the steps that have been taken to prevent this from happening;
• ensure that the depot manager engages with Miss A directly to allay any future concerns and give a direct response and assurances in relation to recycling collections; and
• provide us with copies of monitoring sheets for recent collections to show that all recycling collections at Miss A's address have been carried out as scheduled.