Local Government

Summary

Ms C removed her child from school and requested a transfer to a new school as she was concerned about the impact of the school environment on her child's wellbeing. The school raised concerns about her child's absence and scheduled a meeting to discuss this. Ms C subsequently found out that the school nurse had contacted her child's GP to request information just before this meeting and a report had been faxed to the school. Ms C complained that the head teacher inappropriately made this request. In particular, the GP records stated the requested information was required for an inter-agency meeting with child protection concerns involved, when the meeting did not involve other agencies and there were no child protection concerns.

The council said the request was made by the school nurse who only asked the GP practice if someone could call the school to discuss if there was anything in the child's medical history relevant to concerns about their ongoing wellbeing and absence from school. The council said there were no child protection concerns but it was not possible to seek this information from Ms C as she refused to have any contact with them. However, when we asked for evidence of the lack of communication, the council acknowledged that in fact Ms C did have contact with both the school and council officers during this period.

After investigating these issues and reviewing the records from the school and GP we found that although it was clear that inaccurate information was received by the GP about child protection concerns, it was not clear that this was due to the actions of the head teacher and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we were critical that the council did not make any record of the request for information and did not inform Ms C or the child about this. We also found failings with the council's complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that decisions to seek sensitive information about a pupil are adequately recorded and the pupil and/or parents are consulted (unless there is a clear recorded reason for not doing so);
• apologise to Ms C and her child for the failings identified;
• remind staff of the definition of a complaint in their complaints handling procedure;
• review their complaints handling tools to ensure staff are prompted to identify relevant evidence when planning an investigation; and
• audit a sample of recent correspondence to ensure that correspondence meeting the definition of a complaint is being handled under the correct process.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of complaints about the council's handling of a planning application for a house on a plot neighbouring her own. She felt that the council failed to take account of her objections to the application, failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the development, recorded inaccurate site boundaries and incorrectly said in the planning report that there were no trees on site.

We reviewed the evidence and found that the council had taken into account Ms C's objections when assessing the application. They noted the boundary dispute and correctly advised that this was a private legal matter. In addition they imposed planning conditions in order to protect Ms C's amenity.

Although the planning officer said that the site had been cleared and Ms C said that one tree remained on the site, we took the view that the planning officer's description of the site was reasonable. In our view it was appropriate for the planning officer to highlight the site clearance to the council's bio-diversity officer for assessment. We were satisfied that the planning report was appropriate and we considered that the council had given reasonable consideration to the impact of the development on the environment.

Summary

Mrs C brought a complaint on behalf of Mrs A, who lives in a block of accommodation. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew their offer of grant funding towards works required to bring Mrs A's house up to a reasonable standard. She also complained that the council failed to provide Mrs A with assistance in seeking agreement from the other property owners in the block to arrange for the works to be carried out.

We found that the block in which Mrs A's home was included was identified as being sub-standard. Initially the council's efforts were directed towards assisting owners of the properties concerned to arrange for the works to be completed to bring the properties up to a habitable standard. To assist with this, the council offered grants towards the costs of the works. However, as the owners did not agree to carry out the works themselves, the council were required, using their powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, to intervene and take responsibility for arranging for the works to be completed. As they were required to carry out the works, they withdrew their offer of grant funding.

We found that the council had provided advice and assistance to owners in their efforts to progress the improvement works. It was noted, however, that Mrs A had not requested additional support. We noted that the decision to withdraw grant funding where owners do not agree to take forward the improvement works themselves was in line with the council's scheme of assistance. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a statutory notice served for roof works affecting a property owned by him. He complained that he had not received a notice served notifying owners that the works would be executed. He also complained that the council had failed to provide a 20-year guarantee on materials and labour for works to a flat roof on the building which had been agreed before works commenced.

On investigation, the council provided copies of all notices served in connection with the works and we found no evidence that the council had failed to properly serve any notice. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

However, it was clear from their correspondence with owners that a guarantee was agreed but never provided. We found that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to secure the guarantee from the contractor on completion of works. As such, we upheld this complaint. Following our enquiry the council were able to secure the guarantee from the contractor and provided copies of this to all affected owners.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C raised a complaint with the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) regarding home care. As the complaint was regarding social work, it was progressed through the statutory social work complaints procedure and a complaints review committee (CRC) was held. Mr C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of his complaint.

We found that while there had been a delay in the CRC being held, it was not unreasonable. We concluded that there was no evidence of bias. We were satisfied that the council had handled the request for the CRC to be recorded in a reasonable way. We were satisfied with the council's explanation regarding the effect of the power of attorney on the complaint and that the CRC had accepted Mr C was the power of attorney. Mr C had decided not to continue with the CRC and therefore they were not given the opportunity to consider the complaint itself at the meeting. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

We did have concerns that the council had subsequently written to Mr C stating that they would not reschedule the CRC and referred him to the SPSO as this meant that the complaint that had been raised was not actually considered at CRC stage, which is a complainant's right under the statutory social work complaints procedure. We also had concerns that the council continued to correspond with Mr C following the referral to the SPSO after the CRC and treated his correspondence as a new complaint. We therefore made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• offer Mr C a final option to have this complaint considered by a CRC on the basis of the written submissions he and the council had previously made to the CRC; and
• remind staff that complaints about complaints handling should not normally be treated as a new complaint and that if appropriate, complainants should be referred to the SPSO.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate within a reasonable timescale a complaint about his neighbour conducting a business from their home. He also complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaints. He said that the council's decision that there had been no breach of planning control had been made without all the facts required to make an evidence-based decision.

We took independent planning advice which stated that the council could exercise its discretion when deciding whether a breach of planning control had occurred. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the council to have decided how much weight to give to information submitted by Mr C, as opposed to the evidence gathered by its own offices. We found the council had conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation and whilst there had been delays, these had been due to engagement with government agencies over which the council had no control. We also found the council had reached a reasonable decision based on the evidence available to it.

We found that although the council had responded to Mr C's complaints, it had not done so in a way that made it clear that the response was part of the complaints process, rather than the wider correspondence Mr C was having with the council. The council had recognised this when reviewing their investigation and taken action to address this failure.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. In response to Miss C's complaint, the council told her they had investigated her concerns. They noted that her reports were related to noise that would be expected during her neighbour's daily use of the property and that making this noise was not considered to be anti-social behaviour.

Miss C was unhappy with the council's decision. We investigated and noted that the council's anti-social behaviour team had responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On two occasions they had taken steps to warn her neighbour about the noise but were satisfied that on other occasions there were no instances of anti-social behaviour. They did note that her property had poor sound insulation and carried out works accordingly. However, Miss C continued to report noise.

We accepted that Miss C had suffered from the noise but were satisfied that the council had investigated Miss C's concerns and taken action where appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to resolve flooding in his house which appeared to be coming from a nearby culverted burn (a burn that is diverted through a pipe). Although the council undertook some investigations including a camera survey which found that the pipe did not follow the expected route, they were not able to survey the full length of the pipe due to an inaccessible manhole. They told Mr C they were not responsible for repairs as the problem appeared to be on private land.

Mr C disagreed and contacted his councillor. After a meeting with all parties the council agreed to undertake a dowser survey (a test used to detect the presence of water) to trace the route of the pipe. The survey was undertaken but the council did not contact Mr C after this or respond to his email asking about next steps.

After investigating these issues we upheld Mr C's complaint about communication. We found it was unreasonable that the council did not share the results of the dowser survey with Mr C or respond to his email about this. We also found the council did not give Mr C clear and consistent information about what he could expect from them as they told him the repairs were not their responsibility but also continued to indicate that future work was anticipated.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the repairs as we found the council had taken reasonable steps to check that the repairs were not their responsibility.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure in communication;
• remind relevant staff of the importance of documenting meetings, in particular agreed outcomes; and
• consider and address relevant staff training needs in relation to clear communication and managing expectations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaint about a letter written to her husband which contained comments about her. In particular, she was concerned that the council had not contacted her during their investigation of her complaint. She also complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a request to defer her son's entry to primary school. In particular, she was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the information provided and the handling of her complaint.

While we had some concerns about aspects of the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint to them, we were satisfied that the council had explained why they had written to Mrs C's husband. However, we did not consider that the council's position on not considering information during an investigation which was covertly obtained was reasonable. We were also satisfied that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for the information provided and saw no evidence of fault in the handling of Mrs C's complaint about this matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the handling of this complaint; and
• in view of the legal advice detailed in this case, reconsider their position for future cases on the admissibility of material presented in a complaint which has been obtained covertly.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council handled her concerns about a breach of planning control by her neighbours who had built a balcony. She complained that it did not meet the minimum distance requirements for privacy. Ms C also pointed out that while the council said they followed guidance, the guidance did not refer to balconies. She questioned therefore how the council could say they followed guidance.

In addition, Ms C pointed out that the council elected to use window to window minimum distance measurements for assessing privacy, but she noted that the council themselves pointed out that the minimum distances were not met.

We requested all of the relevant information from the council and also sought independent planning advice. We noted that, prior to our involvement in this case, the council had acknowledged their failings and had taken action to remedy them. In particular, the council recognised that their Guidance to Householders was insufficient with regard to balconies and privacy and accepted that it should be reviewed.

The adviser confirmed that the use of enforcement powers is a discretionary matter for the council. The adviser also concluded that the council had addressed the concerns Ms C raised and that their officers applied the most appropriate guidance available to them at the time. We accepted this view and did not uphold the complaint.