Local Government

Summary

Mr C said that there was a long-standing history of complaints of low-level noise from an industrial estate close to his home but that the council failed to properly investigate these. He also said that when owners of the site applied for planning permission in 2014, a report presented to the planning committee failed to accurately report the noise issues.

We investigated the complaint and also took independent planning advice. We found that from December 2011, the council had issued noise abatement notices in respect of the site but that the owners had failed to comply. After Mr C complained in 2012, the council visited the premises concerned and witnessed a number of noise issues about which they issued a further abatement notice. The owners were sent written warnings and advised of the penalties of non-compliance. No further complaints were received in 2012. Thereafter, the owners applied for planning permission and there was no doubt that the relevant committee report contained erroneous information. However, this was corrected orally at the planning committee meeting to discuss the application. Notwithstanding the error, we further found that noise was not a material consideration when determining the application. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about care provided to her father (Mr A) by the council on a specific day, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We looked at information provided by Miss C and the council about what happened on the day. Both accounts agreed there was an incident with Mr A, but they did not agree about the reason for it. There was no conclusive evidence of the reason for the incident, which could have helped to prove whether the care provided was adequate in the circumstances. In the absence of this evidence, or any independent evidence of what actually happened, we could not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, although we did not uphold the complaint, we had concerns about specific actions of the staff member involved, and we made recommendations to address these concerns.

The council's responses to Miss C's complaint focused on the days before and after the day she complained about. The council told us this was to assess whether what happened on the specific day could have been predicted, or if the care provided could have had an effect on Mr A. The council should have explained this to Miss C.

It appears that no action was taken when Miss C first reported her complaint to the council, and there were delays when they did deal with her complaint. We found the council did not, as they should have, interrogate evidence provided by their staff thoroughly, in order to resolve a lack of clarity in the evidence given by staff. Our main concern was that the council failed to tell Miss C that she had the right to refer her complaint to a social work complaints review committee, which meant she was denied the opportunity to have her complaint heard fully through the correct process. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• discuss the timing of a phone call with the staff member, to ensure that in future cases they prioritise the patient they are with;
• ensure that points for improvement arising from a discussion between a manager and Miss C's parents are fed back to the staff member, so this general approach can be applied in future;
• ensure that home care staff and management know how to deal with complaints about their service, and how to signpost them to the correct formal process when necessary;
• feed back to staff involved in this complaint the need for them to interrogate evidence thoroughly; and
• ensure that where they handle complaints through the social work complaints process, complainants are always signposted to the complaints review committee.

Summary

Mrs C and her husband decided to defer their child, who has a February birthday, starting Primary One. They wanted their child to spend a further year at nursery. Mrs C said that in terms of the Scottish Government statutory guidance, The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, children born in January or February have the right to have the deferred year funded by a local authority.

Mrs C and her husband secured a place for their child at a partnership nursery school within the council area and applied for funding. The council initially refused the application because in terms of their early years admissions policy deferred funding was only provided for the nursery the child had attended in their pre-school year. In the case of this child, the nursery was in another local authority where the family resided. The council then wrote to Mrs C stating they would fund her child's place but shortly thereafter withdrew their funding offer. The council said the letter offering to fund the child's place had been sent as a result of human error and because their database had not been updated.

Mrs C complained to us about the council's handling of her application. In terms of the statutory guidance, we were satisfied that the council were entitled to set their own local admissions policy and at the time Mrs C made her application, her child did not meet the criteria for funding. Nevertheless, we accepted that the failings in the handling of Mrs C's application had left her in a difficult situation and had caused her concern and distress. For this reason, we upheld the complaint. We also made a recommendation to the council in relation to their computer system in respect of funding applications.

The council subsequently reviewed their admissions policy and agreed to fund the child's deferred year place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide evidence of the process review and adjustments made to their computer system in respect of funding applications.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures in dealing with his reports of anti-social behaviour about two of his neighbours, who were council tenants. Mr C said that his health had suffered considerably due to the actions of his neighbours and the council's failure to deal with the matter appropriately.

During our investigation, we looked at whether, in their handling of Mr C's complaints about his neighbours, the council had followed their anti-social behaviour procedure (ASB procedure) and the provisions set out in their Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement (SSTA). We found that the council had dealt with most of Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours in accordance with the provisions of the SSTA and their ASB procedure.

However, the records showed that having begun action under the SSTA against one of Mr C's neighbours, in relation to a pet being unsupervised in Mr C's garden and common areas, there was no evidence that the council ensured the required action was taken. This was despite Mr C continuing to report problems with his neighbours, providing them with further evidence and telling the council that they were failing to resolve his complaints.

We considered that the council's written responses to Mr C's letters were unreasonably brief and failed to fully explain the actions taken by them. The council's responses failed to advise Mr C that some of the matters raised by him were not for the council, or to whom the issues should be reported. This lack of detail was also apparent in the council's written responses to Mr C's formal letters of complaint to them about their handling of the situation. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• take steps to ensure that any future complaints from Mr C are dealt with in line with their ASB procedure and SSTA, whilst taking full account of the previous formal action taken by the council;
• ensure that, in future, they provide complainants with full written responses to written reports and formal complaints about anti-social behaviour, with signposting where appropriate; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C had previously complained to us that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who had acted for a member of his family before their death (see complaint 201300636). We upheld this complaint and recommended that council take steps to ensure that the issues he had raised were investigated appropriately. The council carried out a further investigation, but Mr C was unhappy with this and made a further complaint to the council. He referred this complaint to us after receiving the council's response.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a social work adviser. We found that although there were some minor failings in the council's investigation, overall, the investigation was proportionate and was carried out in line with the relevant code of practice. We said that we would bring the minor failings to the board's attention, but we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to hold a complaints review committee (CRC) in relation to the complaint. Although the council had initially told Mr C that they would make arrangements to comply with his request, they then told him that a CRC could not be held, as the issue he was complaining about was not one that could be dealt with by a CRC. We were critical that the council's initial letter raised Mr C's expectations that a CRC would be held. We were also critical of the council's delay in responding to his request for a CRC. However, we found that it had been reasonable for the council not to hold a CRC and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained that the council did not take reasonable steps to address water ingress in her home. She said despite numerous visits and investigations by the council's staff, they had not been able to identify the source of the water ingress and they had failed to carry out specific agreed work to identify the source of the problem.

We were satisfied that the council accepted that water ingress was a problem in Ms C's home. The evidence showed that their staff and contractors attended Ms C's home on numerous occasions, conducted a variety of tests and carried out repair work in good faith. When this work proved to be unsuccessful, they sought the opinion of independent specialists and acted upon their recommendations. The overall picture was of the council attempting to identify the cause of the water ingress and when one cause was ruled out, or a remedy did not work, they conducted further investigations and sought to identify other potential causes. We did not find this approach unreasonable.

The council had a clear obligation to ensure that Ms C was housed in a property that was wind and watertight. If they were unable to ensure that Ms C's current property met the required standard, they were obliged to arrange for temporary accommodation while the required work was completed and the basic standard restored. We accepted that the council did offer to provide Ms C with temporary accommodation, but that she chose to remain in her home.

We were, therefore, satisfied that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the water ingress problems in Ms C's home and offered Ms C temporary accommodation in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement.

Summary

Following a call from Mr C, the council sent a plumber to unblock a drain at his home. Mr C's own plumber had advised that the blockage was in the communal area of pipework and so when the council's plumber unblocked the drain, all residents in the block were invoiced. Mr C paid his share of this invoice. However, the council were then informed by another resident that he had not been affected by the blockage. As a result they contacted their plumber who confirmed that the blockage was in Mr C's pipework and not in a communal area. As a result they withdrew the invoices from other residents and invoiced Mr C for the full costs. They also apologised for not doing so earlier. Mr C complained that he was never told that he would be liable for the costs should the works not be communal and also that he was not told that he would be charged costs at the out-of-hours rate.

The council explained that it was their standard procedure to highlight costs and responsibilities to customers requesting that they attend to emergency repairs. They explained that information about their services and the costs are also available on their website.

The evidence suggested that Mr C's plumber had said that the block was likely to be in the communal pipework, so Mr C should call in the evening and request that a plumber attend. We obtained copies of the council's procedures and phone scripts. Although we were unable to say what was said in the phone calls, we were satisfied that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's request for a service and were justified in invoicing Mr C alone, given that the council's plumber located the blockage in the pipework in Mr C's property. As the evidence suggested that the council dealt with the call out appropriately, and as we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to establish that the council did not inform Mr C of costs and the process during his phone calls to them, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter complained to her primary school of being bullied. The school took some action but the bullying continued. This was repeatedly reported to the school but the situation was not resolved. Mrs C decided to remove her daughter from the school due to the situation and recalled the head teacher saying that she was 'more than happy' for Miss C to move school. Mrs C complained to the council that the school had not taken reasonable action in response to the reports of her daughter being bullied and about the head teacher saying she was 'more than happy' for Miss C to move school. The council's investigation concluded that the school had acted reasonably. Mrs C raised complaints about this with us.

We found that the school had not made any reasonable record of the reports of bullying, the actions taken or the subsequent outcomes. The school's policy and the council's related strategy indicated that this should have been done, and monitoring take place. We decided, therefore, that the school had not taken reasonable action in relation to the complaints of bullying and we made recommendations to address this.

The council told us that the head teacher's remarks had been made in the context of Miss C obtaining a new start from moving schools. We decided that there was no evidence to reasonably conclude that the head teacher had made the remarks Mrs C alleged. We also decided that the council had not responded reasonably to the specific matters raised in Mrs C's complaints and had included irrelevant information in their responses and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C and Miss C that the school did not take reasonable action in response to complaints that Miss C was being bullied;
• finalise development of the reporting procedures mentioned in their strategy and implement these;
• assure us that the anti-bullying policies of all schools have been reviewed to ensure that they are in line with their strategy regarding the recording of reports of bullying, action taken and subsequent outcomes;
• assure us that a monitoring system has been put in place to ensure that schools are recording reports of bullying, action taken and subsequent outcomes in line with their strategy;
• apologise to Mrs C that they did not respond to her complaint reasonably; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of responding directly to specific points raised in complaints and that only information relevant to the complaint being considered should be included in complaint responses.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a planning application they had approved for a residential property to be built in a site adjacent to his home, which is on a cliff edge. After approval of the plans, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had visited the site and, in contradiction of the plans, recommended that building should not take place within ten metres of the edge of the cliff. Mr C therefore questioned why SEPA were not consulted at the time of the application and the council responded to say that there was nothing about the application which would have triggered a consultation.

As part of our investigation, the council provided SEPA's guidance for which applications they wished to be consulted upon. This did not include any reference to developments on or near cliff edges. The planning advice we received was that the decision not to consult was at the council's discretion in the circumstances. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's handling of her complaint about the direct payments awarded to her for the care of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs A has Alzheimer's disease and is cared for in Ms C's home. We found that the council should have dealt with Ms C's initial correspondence as a complaint, but had failed to do so. When Ms C then made a further complaint, there was a delay in acknowledging this and in letting her know how it would be handled. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C had then taken her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC), as she was unhappy with the council's response. She complained to us that the CRC had failed to adequately consider some of the points she had raised. In social work cases, there is a separate social work complaints procedure that has been set up by law and ends in an appeal to the CRC. We can look at the CRC process to ensure it has been properly followed, however, this does not include looking at the subject of the complaint to the CRC or reviewing their decision. Whilst we can look at whether or not the CRC took evidence into account, we cannot review how they used this evidence in reaching their own conclusions.

In Ms C's case, we were satisfied that the CRC had considered the points she had raised. It was for the CRC to decide on the issues presented to them and on how much weight to give to the information they received from Ms C and the council. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not complied with the CRC's recommendations. Whilst we recognised that Ms C was unhappy with the action taken by the council in response to the CRC's recommendations, we were satisfied that they had complied with the recommendations. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Ms C for the failures identified in relation to their handling of her complaint.